When Mark wrote his Gospel, about 65-70 a.p., the Matthean Logia (in various Greek forms) was in general use ; this Logia passed over the narrative material of the story of Jesus, and consisted mainly of a collection of Jesus’ discourses and shorter sayings; it included the Sermon, although in what precise form it is very difficult to determine—probably not that in which it appears in either of our canonical Gospels. Now Mark’s Gospel, in striking contrast, reports mainly the acts and events of Jesus’ public ministry, giving much less attention to the teaching (the longest sections of discourse material are in 218-22 323-30 41-32 @8-13 76-23 934-38 91. 39-50 1024-31. 38-45 1123-25 12. 13). Perhaps Mark wished to put into more com- plete and permanent transmission that other side of the Gospel story which was neglected in the Logia. If so, ib was unnecessary for him to repeat the Sermon and certain other discourse elements of that work, since he wrote to complete the
8 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
In wording, a like verdict of superior excellence falls to the Gospel of Matthew. Since both Gospels contain the discourse in Greek, therefore in translation we cannot find in either of them the ipsissima verba of Jesus (except for the few Aramaic words transliterated, as in Mt 5”). But when we ask which Gospel has more accurately transmuted into Greek the ideas that Jesus ex-
ressed in Aramaic, which has more faithfully interpreted His meaning in this teaching, there are many indications that Matthew gives the better record. A complete study of the parallels in the two accounts of the Sermon shows that in almost every instance there is a greater authen- ticity in the Matthean account; of this a few illustrations will suffice. (1) The first Beatitude is variously worded (Mt 5° waxdproe of rrwxol TH mvev- mart; Lk 6° waxdproc ol rrwyxol). It is perhaps true that the Lukan form corresponds more nearly to the Aramaic utterance of Jesus, which may not have had a term corresponding to Matthew’s ro mvevpar.; the important consideration, however, is as to the idea rather than the form. In the Lukan Beatitude, material poverty is intended, as is shown conclusively by the converse woe in 6% oval tuty rots rAovalos (woe could not be pronounced upon those who were spiritually rich). But in the Matthean Beatitude the ambiguous term rrwyoi— corresponding to the OT o3y (Ps 69%, Is 611) and mirax (Ps 1091, Is 14°), and standing in the LXX for those Hebrew words (see art. Poor in vol. iv.), with a primary moral and spiritual import—is made explicit for the moral and spiritual signification by the addition of the phrase r@ rvevuari, to protect the Beatitude from the material interpretation which had made its impress upon Luke’s source. Thus Matthew has preserved Jesus’ original meaning of the first Beatitude (perhaps at the expense of its form) ; of course it is the meaning rather than the form that is of value. (2) In Mt 5®8=Lk 6-6 there are many indications of the secondary char- acter of Luke’s material: Mt 5* does not appear; the idea of lending (Lk 6***) is a disturbing im- portation ; instead of reAdvac Luke has dpaprwarol ; Mt 5* is given in a non-Jewish form—éceo6e viol ‘Lylorov instead of brws yévnobe viol rob marpds tue Tod év odpavois; Mt 5*> does not appear, nor the term of é6vxol of Mt 547; and the reminiscence of Dt 18% in Mt 5% éceoGe . . . réNevor is replaced by a non-Jewish and much weaker yivecde olxripuoves. That is to say, Luke’s account lacks the Palestinian setting, the local colour, the Jewish phrases, and the OT allusions, besides introducing an extraneous practical element. (3) A similar practical addition or expansion of Mt 72 may be seen in Lk 6%; a true teaching, but foreign to the context. Similarly Lk 6%. (4) In the Mt 7 and Lk 6% forms of the ‘Golden Rule’ (quoted above), the
current record of Christ’s life, not to produce a new Gospel which should antiquate and supersede the Logia. This appears also in the fact that the present Greek Matthew combines prob- ably the Matthean Logia with the Gospel of Mark (plus some additional matter) into a quite extensive account of the life of Christ. What makes this theory somewhat unsatisfactory is the fact that no small amount of Jesus’ sayings actually con- tained in Mark’s haere was in all probability present in the Logia, e.g. Mic 41-20 884-38 91. 39-50 12; but perhaps an explana- tion for this can be found. At any rate, the problem of Mark’s omission of the Sermon cannot yet be considered solved.
As for the absence of the Sermon from the Gospel of John, the entire character of that book offers a probable reason for its omission. The author has distinctly chosen not to reproduce Synoptic material, but to make a Gospel with different contents, and setting forth Gospel truth ina, different way. That he passes over the Sermon is, therefore, not at all due to his ignorance of the discourse, but to his motive, according to which he passes over ali the Synoptic discourses (Mt 5-7. 10. 13. 18. 21-25, Lk 6. 10-21), and most of the narrative matter as well. Nor did he, in passing by all this, wish his readers to regard that part of the Gospel story as unhistorical or unessential. He chose to treat a particular phase of Christ’s life and personality—what he probably considered the highest phase. This Gospel was de- signed to illumine, not to supersede, the others