thought. But the fundamental agreement of the | Evangelists in composing their Gospels.* How AD, AD. A.D. A.0. A.D. 30 45 60 75 90 : ' 1 { 3 ’ y -! ’ , Ff 1 u A i ; Aramaic Orat—Tradition——_.-—_ Greek —._Oral—_Tradition . a Gs : rE : ‘ mSX ; : r b ‘ Mattheean z ' Pertod oF ' Seese nad : ‘ i Set asee c.80AD iu ' Mattheean See ‘ ' y 4 5 Poet Sees yi Time unknown * \ CELE Greek Forms of the to mf eee y 4 : ; it ' ‘ U Pa a i Translation and Change : \ :
\
\ Aramaic (exe 1
\ Ora : r Written 7
1 Trad ihenasasy i Records j
; i ; : i Lukan
; To Written Form ‘ , Sermon
; \ Aramaic —_Orat ‘Tradition [Greek + Oral__Tradition 30 45 60 75 90 A.D A.D A.D. A.D. A
Diagram to Illustrate the
two accounts, which shows them to be reports of the same historical discourse, has not been seriously obscured in transmission.
When one attempts to trace more in detail the particular history of the Sermon on the Mount during the years c, 29-85 A.D., one comes upon many perplexing problems about which at present there isno agreement. Opinions ventured in this sphere can only be tentative and modest.
(1) It seems probable that the Matthzean Logia was used in a Greek form, indeed in differing Greek forms, by both the First and the Third Evangelists. * If the same Greek form of the Logia was used by both, the one or the other (or perhaps both) has introduced a remarkable series of changes in con- tent, arrangement, and wording which it would be difticult to explain. A much more probable supposition is that the Matthsan Logia was variously translated into Greek,| in whole or in
* See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i, 52, 53; Jiilicher, Finleitung 7. d. NT3, p. 219; Wernle, Synopt. Frage, pp. 79, 80; Hawkins, Hore Synoptice (1899), pp. 88-92; J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes 2 (1900), pp. 179-182. That the same Greek form of the Logia was used by both the First and Third Evangelists is maintained by O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu (1901), pp. 22-24,
t See Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theologie, 1885, p. 1 ff.
TransmisSion
of the Sermon on the Mount.
much influence such outside sources had upon their reports it would be difficult to determine—perhaps it was considerable.
(3) We need to allow for a fair amount of editorial selection, arrangement, adaptation, and revision on the part of our two authors. Luke (1?) has given us important information concerning his material, purpose, and “method; and the First Evangelist probably wrote under similar condi- tions. As they gathered their sources, they found themselves in possession of three classes of sayings from Jesus—(a) brief sayings still joined to specific events of His ministry, and which they could in part arrange in their right order; (6) the remains
* The First Gospel of our NT Canon is neither the Matthean Logia itself, which was in Aramaic (Eusebius, HE iii. 39. 16), nor is it an immediate translation of that Logia, since it does not contain the inevitable indications of a translated work. The Greek Gospel of Matthew is rather a combination of the Logia in some mediate Greek form with the Gospel of Mark, plus the addition of various portions and characteristics which did not belong to either of the original books. However, because it substantially incorporated the Logia, it continued to bear the Apostle’s name, The author of the enlarged Greek edition of the original Matthew work is unknown. On this matter see the works on NT Introduction by B. Weiss, H. Holizmann, Jiilicher, Zahn, Salmon, and others; also Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew.
aE
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
of certain of Jesus’ greatest discourses, containing the theme and some of the essential matter belong- ing thereto ; these also could generally be assigned to their proper places in the history; (c) small sections of teaching or single sayings, the original connexion of which was no longer known; these would be inserted here and there in the narrative without particular attachment, or would be asso- ciated with the nuclei of the great discourses wherever the subject of the one was similar to that of the other. Such compilation would pro- duce the phenomena of extraneous material which we find in both accounts of the Sermon, as well as in other discourse sections of both Gospels. When the material of his Gospel had been arranged satisfactorily by the author, it remained for him to adjust the several parts to each other, to smooth over the joints by his literary skill, and in various ways to give the book a unity and finish such as an author would desire for his work.
(4) In view of the fact that the Gospels were written for the practical use of the Christians in their life and worship, the Evangelists felt at liberty to make such a selection and presentation of the Gospel facts and teachings as would be most acceptable and useful to the circles of Christians for whom their books were prepared. - Each Gospel therefore has a marked individuality. Matthew, in accordance with his purpose, dwells at length upon the relation of Jesus and His message to the Hebrew Scriptures and the current Judaism. But Luke, or his source, with a Gentile public in mind, passes over this material in the main and presents the Gospel in its universal aspects as a spiritual and altruistic religion for allmen. These charac- teristics of the First and Third Gospels appear strikingly in their respective accounts of the Sermon on the Mount.