Mt 5%. Eoecbe oty tmets rédecor @s 6 TaTip tudy 6 ovpdvios TéNetbs €or.
WitiOo *Tldrep quay 6 év rots ovpavots* aylacOynrw Td dvoud cov, WEOdrw Bacirela cov, yevnOyjrw To Oédnud cov, ws év ovpave Kal éml yijs* Urdoy dprov hudy tov ém- ovcLov Ods Nuty onmepov* Kal des huty ra dperih- Kwara hudy, ws Kal tues adjKkauer Tos 6perlérats Hudv* Brat uh eiceveyeys Nuas els TeLpuo Mov,
12
Lk 6%. 2,
2] « 20 Maxdpio of mrwxol, dre ¢ : y ¢
buerépa éeotly % Baowdela Tov Oeod.
2 a 21> waxdprot ol kAalovres vOv, Ore yeNdoere.
9 an a 71a wardptot ol revavresvOr, 8re XopracOjcec be.
{pkey Tiveo@e oixripwoves Kabws 6 mwaTnp tudy oiKkTipwwrv éoriv.
Lk 1174.
2 IIdrep,
ayiacOjrw 7d Bvoud cov" EMaTw Baoiela cov"
Sréy dprov huav Tov ér- ovoLov Oldou Hhuty 7d Kad’ nuépav’ 4 kal dpes quiv Tas duaprlas TOY, kal yap avrol adiomer mavrl dpetNovTe Huty* kal pn eloevéyxys nuds els Tetpao mov.
GANG pdoar Nuds drd Tod Tovypou.
Similarly compare Mt 5 = Lk 168 (= Mk 10U= Mt 19°) and Mt 745=Lk 11%. The corresponding context or setting of each pair of these parallel sayings, or as regards the Lord’s Prayer the nature of the case (see below, ii. 4 / (2)), indicates that however variant the words have become in transmission, they started from the same utter- ances of Jesus. The parallel records run the entire gamut of variation from close verbal simi- larity to wide verbal divergence, and in a few cases even to difference of idea itself.
Now the explanation of these striking phenomena of content, form, and substance in the Sermon of Matthew and Luke is to be found in the history of the transmission of this material during the years c. 29-85 A.D. This section of history is one part of the great ‘Synoptic problem.’* While many elements of this problem are still in dispute, certain fundamental facts pertaining to it now seem well established.
(1) Jesus habitually taught in Aramaic, not in Greek.t The
thorough and deliberate discussion of this question seems to have reached a settled conclusion.t{ We were all eager to
*In the extensive and highly important literature upon this subject: is to be sought the presentation and treatment of the matters outlined in the following paragraphs. See the art. GosPELs, vol. ii., and literature there cited ; also art. ‘Gospels’ by Sanday in Smith’s DB2, and by E. A. Abbott and Schmiedel in Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. ii. ; also Wernle, Synopt. Frage (1899); Wendt, Lehre Jesu, 1 Th. (1886); B. Weiss, Matthdus- evangelium (1876); H. Holtzmann, Synopt. Evangelien (1363) ; Weizsicker, Untersuchungen wi. d. evangelische Geschichte (1864, 2nd ed. 1901); Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels (1890) ; Hawkins, Horce Synopticcee (1899); Burkitt, Z’wo Lectures on the Gospels (1901).
+ It is not unlikely that Jesus knew some Greek, for many Greek-speaking Gentiles lived in Galilee, and that language must have been used not a little in such a hive of commerce as Capernaum was. Jesus’ work, however, was exclusively among the Jews, and there is no conclusive evidence that He knew or spoke Greek at all; even His trial before Pilate cannot prove this, as Pilate must have been accustomed to use an interpreter in treating with the Sanhedrin. See O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu (1901), p. 22.
t That Jesus taught in Greek has been ably argued by Roberts (Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles, 1888) and by
SERMON ON THE MOUNT 5
believe that these very Greek words of our Gospels came directly from Jesus’ lips; yet historical investigation shows that they are but a translation from the original utterances. While the theories of Resch, Marshall, Dalman, Blass, E. A. Abbott, and others as to a primitive Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel are uncertain, it is clear that the Memorabilia of Jesus were originally and for some years in the Aramaic language. The Aramaic vocabulary, syntax, and influence can everywhere be seen through the Greek of the Gospels, like the earlier text in a palimpsest manuscript.
(2) Jesus’ more important teachings were marked and remem- bered from the time they were spoken. It is not too much to suppose that He impressed certain teachings—not their form, but their substance—upon His disciples. From day to day, therefore, during Jesus’ public ministry, His followers were gathering and pondering His utterances, holding them in memory and repeating them to one another nearly or quite in Jesus’ own words. After His death and resurrection His followers treasured these sayings of their Master’s, studied them, preached them, and faithfully taught them to all who came into the Christian brotherhood (cf. Ac 242). The story of Jesus’ life, His deeds and His words, was the guide of every individual Christian, of every Christian community, and of the entire Christian movement. What He had taught was the staple matter of all Christian instruction and worship, and was everywhere regarded as the norm of Christianity. And of all that Jesus had taught there was nothing more prominent, vital, and practical—indeed nothing more generally revered and used—than the teaching contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
(8) It is also certain that, for years after Jesus had given His teaching, it was circulated and transmitted by word of mouth. Jesus Himself wrote nothing, nor did His disciples until long after. Both these facts were due to the Jewish custom of the time. The teaching of the Rabbis in Jesus’ day was entirely oral —only their sacred books, the Old Testament, might be written ; therefore the pupils of the Rabbis heard and memorized their teaching. Out of this custom arose a special qualification for, and efficiency in, oral instruction and oral transmission among the Jews. To men of this nation and country Jesus’ sayings were given, and by them preserved. It cannot, of course, be supposed that Jesus insisted upon forms of words; He was neither a literalist nor a verbalist. Therefore His disciples did not place undue emphasis upon the ipsissima verba of His teaching. But so perfectly worded were the most significant of His shorter sayings—many of which can be seen in this discourse—that they would persist in their original form. For the remainder of the teaching an exact verbal transmission was unlikely, and the evidence shows that it did not so happen.