One matter of detail, however, requires fuller explanation. In certain instances it has seemed necessary to use narrative material twice. This necessity arises in some cases from condensation in the narrative, from which it results that a single sentence or paragraph covers two distinct events or historical occasions, separated perhaps by some distance of time. In other cases it arises from a different arrangement and construction of the narrative in the two or more accounts, involving a different representation of the order of events on the part of the different writers. In both classes of cases it is necessary that certain portions of the record be repeated: in cases of condensation, in order to bring the paragraph or verse into connection with both the occasions to which it refers; in cases of displacement, in order at the one point to preserve the logical connection to the extent, that is, of presenting entire each paragraph as we judge the writer conceived it in his own mind, and at the other to show the historical position of the event. Such repetition is in every instance indicated by brackets. The repeated matter is placed in single brackets in the instance in which it is detached from the paragraph of which, in the writer's mind, it was a part, its insertion at this point representing the historical place of the event. In the other instance of its occurrence, namely, when it is retained in the paragraph to which it belongs, it stands unbracketed if this also represents an historical occasion to which it refers; it is placed in double brackets if, by its retention in its original paragraph connection, it is detached from its historical position as indicated by a comparison of the gospels. In one instance (Matt. 1:18-25) a paragraph containing material belonging to two different points of the history, yet blended inextricably into a single narrative, has been repeated entire, being placed in single brackets in the second instance of its occurrence, this being the position called for by the parallelism of a portion of the narrative with the account in Luke.

As concerns the arrangement of matter within the sections, our general principle of preserving as far as possible the structure of each gospel, as well as our judgment that it is important that the gospel history should be read by paragraphs, not by verses, has led to the abandonment of the plan adopted in those harmonies which make it a matter of chief importance that similar sentences or even phrases stand opposite one another on the page. This plan involves indefinite dissection of the gospel narratives, and is then only partially successful in exhibiting their parallelism in details. For the purpose of this Harmony, which is planned with a view to the historical study of the gospels, we have thought it wiser to be content in general with placing parallel paragraphs opposite one another, leaving it to the student to make the more detailed comparison himself.

This method is the more necessary because there are many different kinds of parallelism, even when sections or paragraphs in the different gospels manifestly refer to the same events or discourses. This arises from the fact that the various writers differ

widely in style and in their method of narration. No printed page can adequately exhibit the exact character of the parallelism between paragraphs of dissimilar scope and structure. Sometimes several incidents in a paragraph of one gospel seem to have little relation to those narrated in a paragraph of another, when nevertheless both paragraphs relate what may be called comprehensively one event. For example, Matthew relates that early on the resurrection morning Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and to the other Mary, while John speaks only of Mary Magdalene. We have placed these accounts in general parallelism, not attempting to draw out the details of those early appearances to the women into a minute chronological arrangement for which the gospels afford no data. The proper function of the harmony is served if its page exhibits whatever parallelism there is in the accounts themselves. The denials of Peter, which occurred during the progress of Christ's trial, are properly treated in a similar way.

In cases of unequal paragraphing in different gospels, that is, when matter contained in two or more paragraphs in one of the gospels is, in another gospel, by reason of different treatment, brought together into one paragraph, it has sometimes been necessary to introduce blank spaces dividing the more condensed account into parts corresponding to the paragraphs of the parallel account. See, for example, section 139. Such spacing has also occasionally been employed to bring clearly marked subdivisions of corresponding paragraphs opposite one another. See, for example, section 143. In all cases where the space thus introduced into a paragraph exceeds a very few lines, attention is called to the continuance of the paragraph further on by the insertion in small type of the words, "Paragraph continued below," or similar phrase.

In sections 133 and 138 not only spacing but transposition of material within the section has been necessary in order to bring evidently parallel narratives opposite one another. The portions transposed are in every case either whole paragraphs or such subdivisions of a paragraph as might properly be recognized as sub-paragraphs; and at each point at which by reason of this transposition a paragraph is interrupted, a note has been inserted showing where the remainder of the paragraph is to be found.

When parallel material could not be brought together without doing violence to the structure of one account or the other, we have left each paragraph intact as the evangelist wrote it, but have frequently inserted a reference in the parallel column to indicate where the similar material of the parallel accounts is to be found. This method is illustrated in sections 139 and 140.

The sayings of Christ assigned by the different evangelists to different occasions demand special consideration, furnishing, as they do, one of the most difficult, and at the same time one of the most important, problems of the harmony. It should be observed that, in the report of the sayings and discourses of Jesus, there are two kinds of

parallelism, or two senses in which the term parallel may be used. The same saying may be reported by two evangelists in the same historical connection, as in Matthew 16:25 and Luke 9:24; or it may be reported by both, but assigned to different historical occasions, as in Matthew 16: 25 and Luke 17:33; or it may even be reported by the same evangelist in two different connections, as in Matthew 10:39 and 16:25. In the first class of cases we have only the ordinary question of harmony, such as arises in the treatment of historical material also. The second and third classes, however, present a different problem. It cannot be maintained that every one of these repeated sayings was twice uttered by Jesus: it would be rash to say that in no case were sayings repeated: it would require a keen critic indeed to determine in each case whether the saying was repeated by Jesus on different occasions, or only differently placed by the evangelists; and if the latter, on which of the two or more occasions to which it is assigned it was really uttered. It has therefore seemed best not to undertake to solve this problem, but rather to exhibit the facts as fully as possible, and with the smallest possible admixture of doubtful theory. We have accordingly adopted a method, somewhat more fully explained in the appended note on the "Sayings of Christ assigned by the Evangelists to more than one Occasion" (p. 227), by which every saying of Jesus is retained in the place or places to which each evangelist assigns it, and at the same time all its parallels, if any, even those in the same gospel, are shown on the same page with it, their position in the gospels and the historical positions assigned to them being also indicated.

A full table of the Repeated Sayings is printed at the end of the volume, and the passages themselves appear in the text and margin of the sections enumerated in the table.

In the arrangement of the material on the page the effort has been rather to make a perspicuous and easily intelligible page than to economize space. In sections in which there is but one gospel authority, the text is printed in one wide column. When the author

ities are two or more of the synoptists, and there is no account from the fourth gospel, three parallel columns are used, one being left blank if there are but two accounts. If the account is contained in John and in the synoptists, four columns are used, one for each gospel. In general the same width of column is maintained throughout the section. In sections 127, 131, 134, where, for a large portion of the section, there is but one authority, a change from the narrow to the broad column is permitted, to avoid several successive pages containing but one narrow column.

The two passages, John 7: 53-8: 1, and Mark 16:9-20, which, though contained in the Revised Version, are by the soundest criticism not regarded as belonging properly to the gospels in connection with which they stand, seem to call for special treatment. Both are accordingly set in smaller type than the other portions of the text.

It is scarcely necessary to give reasons for the employment of the Revised Version. Its manifest superiority to any other English version in common use furnishes sufficient justification. While at many points we should have been glad to modify the text or its margin, it has seemed best to adopt it without change or comment other than the occasional modification of its paragraphing. These changes have been made not in a harmonistic interest, but on independent grounds.

For the practical convenience of the student, it may be desirable to recapitulate briefly the significance of the several typographical features of the book:

1. COLUMNS. When a section is printed in tour columns, whether blank or filled, this indicates that for some portion of that section there is material from the gospel of John and from two or more of the synoptic gospels.

When there are three columns, this indicates that matter for this section is found in two or more of the synoptists, the fourth gospel furnishing no account.

There are no two-column pages.

When there is but one column, there is but one authority for any portion of the section, which may be any one of the four gospels. But concerning sections 127, 131, 134, see page viii.

2. BRACKETS. That a passage is inclosed in brackets, single or double, indicates that the same passage is repeated at some other point.

Single brackets advise the reader that the bracketed words are detached from the connection given them by the evangelist, in order to place them in the historical position demanded by a comparison of the different accounts. But concerning Matthew 1:18-25, see page vi.

Double brackets indicate that the bracketed words stand, at this point, in the connection given by the evangelist, but not in the position which, from a comparison of the gospels, there is reason to regard as that which corresponds to the actual time of the event's

occurrence.

3. FOOTNOTES. There are three kinds of footnotes.

Superior figures in the text refer to the marginal readings of the Revised Version of 1881. These are reprinted without change, except as required by the arrangement of

the pages.

Superior letters in the text refer to the Repeated Sayings of Jesus, that is, to sayings of Christ similar to those standing in the text, but reported in a different connection. The number in parenthesis at the end of the footnote indicates the section in which the passage appears in the body of the text. When the footnote contains only a reference by chapter and verse without text or section number, the passage referred to belongs, not to another section, but to another part of the same section.

A few necessary footnotes not included in either of the above classes are indicated by asterisks.

4. SMALLER TYPE IN THE TEXT. The use of smaller type in the body of the text in sections 83, 143, 145, 146, 149, 150, indicates that the material thus printed is not regarded as a genuine part of the gospel under which it is cited.

We have spoken of certain new features of the book as marking its individuality, and in a measure justifying its appearance. We do not, however, forget that in every true book it is the old that is best. If a correct historical combination of the gospels is approximately possible to-day, it is because Christian scholarship, from Tatian and Tatian's predecessors down, has contributed toward its production. We have sought to use all accessible helps, ancient and modern. Our greatest debt to contemporary works of similar purpose with our own is, first, to the Harmony of Edward Robinson, and, next, to the Life of Our Lord by Samuel J. Andrews, a work into which has gone a lifetime of scholarly research, and to which all students of the Life of Christ are under large obligation. Equally great is our debt, though of a different kind, to the two volumes of Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, particularly for the light they have thrown on the textual character and structural peculiarities of the gospel histories. Nor can we fail to acknowledge, though without singling out individual names, our indebtedness to those scholars who have labored in the solution of the intricate question known as the synoptic problem. So intimate is the relation between this problem and that of the harmony that the two must almost of necessity be carried toward their final solution together. To the Rev. Erastus Blakeslee of Boston is due the acknowledgment that but for his suggestion and urgency we should scarcely have undertaken the publication of this result of our study of the gospel history at this time, and that in the perfecting of the nomenclature of the Analytical Outline, particularly of the chapter-divisions, we are indebted to him for valuable suggestions.

In so far as the present work shall contribute to the right understanding of the relations of the gospels to one another, and more especially to a right apprehension of the life and teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, the object in view in its preparation will have been attained.

WM. ARNOLD STEVENS.
ERNEST D. BURTON.

CHRISTMAS, ANNO DOMINI 1893.

NOTE. The present issue is printed from the original plates with minor corrections only. It seems undesirable accordingly to designate it as a second edition.

MAY, 1895.