Conversely also, the Matthzan report of the Sermon probably contains some matter which did not form a part of the original discourse. Certain sections of Mt 5-7 are less evidently connected
* So Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Tholuck, Meyer, Keim, Achelis, Edersheim, Godet, Bruce, Broadus, Kiubel, Nésgen, Feine, Steinmeyer, Wendt, Sanday, Plummer, B. Weiss, H. Weiss, Grawert, Burkitt, Bartlet, Bacon, and many others.
+ See Mk 41f. 35 G34f.,
2 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
a
than the others with the specific theme of the Sermon and its development, ¢.g. 57:76:32 67-16 76. 7-11. 2f. With regard to these and other pas- sages the possibility of their belonging to the actual Sermon cannot be denied, but the pro- bability is felt by most scholars to be against some or all of them. This view is strongly confirmed by the fact that we find parallels to these sections bie where in the Gospels, in other settings which in some cases commend themselves as original. It is difficult to conceive that Luke, or any one else, would break up a discourse of Jesus which had been handed down so fully as in Mt 5-7 and scatter the fragments as in the Third Gospel.* And, finally, it has become recognized that the First Gospel arranges its teaching material into topical groups ;'t all of the four Gospels exhibit the results of this process, but the First Gospel more than the others.
There have been, and are to-day, a number of eminent scholars who regard the Sermon as a compilation throughout, holding that no such discourse was really delivered by Jesus, and that
* See Heinrici, Bergpredigt, i. 49f. It is obviously true that Jesus taught the same truths and principles on various occasions to different individuals, and in doing so may have at times repeated some of His sayings in quite the same, or nearly the same, words. Such repetition may sometimes serve to explain the several forms in which similar sayings have been handed down. But it cannot be used as a universal resolvent of the mass of variations. This stock argument of the apologetic harmonists proceeds upon the assumption that Jesus’ words must have been transmitted in every case precisely as He uttered them. But the assumption is unwarranted, and the phenomena of variation abundantly and decisively disprove it. Nearly all NT scholars now agree that the differences which appear in parallel passages of our Gospels are due chiefly to the vicissitudes of transmission and translation. The Gospel teach- ing did not consist of a set of formule, to be learned and repeated verbatim.
i ses Godet, Collection of the Four Gospels, and the Gospel of Matthew, p. 181ff.; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 52, 84, 106, 185; Wernle, Synopt. Frage, pp. 61-80 ; Weizsicker, Apost. Zeitalter?, pp. 369-393 [Eng. tr. ii, 33-62]; Jiilicher, Hinlettung 4. d. NT, p. 195: Heinrici, Bergpredigt, i. 8f.; B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ui. d. Mattevgm. inioc.; H. Holtzmann, Hand-Comm. ti.d. Synop- tiker, in loc. The discourses of Mt 5-7. 10. 13. 18. 28, 24. 25 are compilations in the sense that to the historical nucleus of each discourse there has been joined some matter upon the same or a kindred subject which originally belonged to other historical connexions. Thus Mt10 contains as a nucleus some instruction which Jesus gave the Twelve when He sent them out on their trial mission (105-15); but to this section there has been added material from another occasion (1016-42, esp, 17-23), when Jesus in the latter part of His ministry was preparing His disciples for the work they must do after His departure. The first Chris- tians found it practically convenient to have the mission teach- ing grouped together. Mt 13 contains a collection of Jesus’ parables upon the nature and development of the kingdom of God. ‘The collection is not found in the corresponding passages Mk 4andLk8. It is quite unlikely that Jesus would make up a discourse of these seven parables (Mt 131-9. 24-30. 3lf. 33. 44. dof. 47-50), If the disciples did not understand the first parable until it was explained to them privately (Mk 419), it would be of little use to add six others no more intelligible. But the chapter itself, by the two breaks at v.10 and vy.34%6, shows that it is a compilation ; vy.®-53, which seem to make all that inter- venes a connected discourse, is the editorial device for giving unity and vividness to the teaching. It is probable that the parable of the Sower was given on some occasion (vv.!-)in Jesus’ Galilzan ministry, accompanied by explicit teaching along the same line. On other occasions the other parables were given: then, their original setting having been lost, all seven were topically grouped by the early Christians for practical instruc- tion. Mt 18 contains a collection of teachings from various occasions, grouped about the nucleus of an original discourse (cf. Mk 933-50) concerning the relations and duties of the Twelve and the community life of the first disciples. Mt 28 is a collec- tion of sayings from different parts of the ministry (cf. Mk 1238-40, Lk 1187-52 1334f. 2045-47), in which Jesus condemned cer- tain acts and characteristics of the Pharisees. The nucleus is apparently in vv.1-12; seven woes (the complete number) are here grouped together as were the seven parables of ch, 13, Mt 24 exhibits the same topical arrangement of material (cf. Lik 1289-46 1722-37 21), And in Mt 21, 22 and 25 appear similar com- pilations of related teaching, It is probable that the author of the present Gospel of Matthew found this material grouped in this way, although he may have carried the process farther, and have unified these groups by editorial retouching. If, then, the First Gospel has several discourses, consisting in each case of the nucleus of some original sermon augmented by kindred material from other occasions, it becomes quite probable that the discourse in Mt 5-7 is of a similar construction. The added matter is just as valuable and trustworthy as the nucleus matter, being equally the authentic utterances of Jesus.