Matthzean wording approves itself as being a better reproduction of what we may understand Jesus to have said; the Matthzean phrase ofros ydp éorw 6 vouos kal of mpopfjrac is absent from the Lukan account on the constant principle of expunging Jewish elements. (5) The same principle explains the significant difference of wording in Mt 77 (od was 6 Néywr por Kupre kvpre eloehedoerar els THY Bacidelay rv otpavav, adN 06 rowdy TO GéAnpa Too marpos Lov Tob év Tots ovpavors) = Lk 6% (rl 6é me KaAetre Kupve xipre, kal ov movetre & Aéyw;). (6) It is obvious in a comparison of the Matthean and Lukan accounts (quoted above) of the closing parable of the Sermon that the Palestinian colour and the vivid picturesqueness of the story as given in the First Gospel de not appear in the commonplace, secondary expressions of the Third. (7) To these six illustrations from the parallel reports of the Sermon must be added the twofold account of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6-8 =Lk 11°-4), which is discussed below (under ii. 44), and most strikingly shows the relative merits of the Matthzean and Lukan reports of Jesus’ teaching. It is not to be denied that the Mattheean form may be somewhat expanded from the original Aramaic; but this has to do with form rather than with substance, and the expansion is in the interest of the true interpretation of the Prayer. Here, also, we note (see the two accounts quoted above) the absence from Luke of the Jewish phrases which speak of God as in heaven, and of His ‘will’ as supreme. The comprehensive and deeply ethical and spiritual term édeAjuara of Matthew is replaced in Luke by the conventional term duaprias, And the petition for deliverance from evil, a characteristically Jewish conception, is expunged.
It cannot be doubted that the strong Jewish element and Palestinian colour of Matthew’s dis- course actually pervaded Jesus’ teaching as origin- ally given. Jesus was a Jew, and spoke to Jews only ; His language and His ideas were therefore Jewish and adapted to Jews. There is no room for a theory that this feature was a subsequent artificial transfusion of Judaism into the teaching of Jesus. But it is easy to see how just this feature was eliminated from His teaching in the course of the Gentile mission. The Gentiles neither understood nor liked the Jews, with their peculiar notions and exclusive ways. In order, therefore, to make the Gospel acceptable to them, the Chris- tian missionaries thought it necessary to wniver- salize the language of Jesus. This has, clearly been done in the case of Luke’s account of the Sermon, possibly by himself,* but more likely by a long process of elimination, through which the material had passed on the Gentile field whence Luke drew his sources for the Third Gospel. It is possible that portions of the original Sermon which were too strongly Jewish to remain in that position found their way into Luke’s Gospel apart from that discourse, and with the Jewish colouring removed. Perhaps this is the explanation of the variant position of Mt 6-84=Lk 122-81, since the same kind of elimination of the Jewish element is apparent here, ¢.g. ra ered Tod otparod is replaced by rods képaxas; 6 marhp budv 6 otpdvios is replaced by 6 eds, note the peculiar addition in Lk 12%; 7a é0vn is replaced by mavra ra Oy 700 dopo (a clear
* Bacon, Sermon on the Mount (1902), p. 109f., says: ‘It was indeed, from the standpoint of the historian of Jesus’ life and teaching, a disastrous, almost incredible mutilation to leave out, as our Third Evangelist has done, all the negative side of the teaching, and give nothing but the commandment of minister- ing love toward all. We can scarcely understand that the five great interpretative antitheses of the new law of conduct toward men versus the old [Mt 521-48], and the three corresponding antitheses on duty toward God [Mt 61-18], could have been dropped in one form of even the oral tradition’; but the Third Evangelist has done this in order to ‘concentrate the teaching upon the simple affirmation of the law of love.’
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT 9
alteration to remove the disparaging reference to the Gentiles’ love for material wealth and power) ; again, the absence of 6 ovpdvios in Lk 12%; and the absence of riv dixacoo’vny adrod (a technical Jewish term) from Lk 12°!. There would seem, therefore, to be no room for question that, historically con- sidered, the Sermon as given by Matthew is of much greater authenticity than the Sermon of Luke, since it has better preserved the actual contents of the historical discourse, its theme and development, its Jewish elements, its Palestinian colour, and the true interpretation of its sayings ; and, in addition to these merits, the Matthzean account has a Greek style of higher literary skill and finish. In this preference for the Matthzan report of the Sermon nearly all scholars are now agreed.*
But this relative superiority of the account in the First Gospel does not mean its absolute authen- ticity. This account is still but a series of excerpts from the historical Sermon, marred by the inci- dents of long transmission, showing the inevitable effects of the process of translation, and containing certain passages which originally belonged to other occasions (see below). Even in some cases we are uncertain whether the ideas themselves of Jesus are not misrepresented by the wording of Mt 5-7. Two instances about which there has been much dispute may be mentioned. In Mt 5 the peculiar tone of Jewish literalness has led many scholars to postulate a Judaistic-Christian colour- ing of Jesus’ words in these verses, since they seem quite foreign to His anti-literal utterances and spirit. Every explanation of them as coming in just this sense from Jesus is beset with difficulties, and fails to satisfy completely (see under ii. 4c). Again, in Mt 5” we find a most significant addition to the teaching of Jesus concerning divorce. This saying probably belongs to the occasion with which it is associated in Mt 19*}2, where it is repeated. In both the Matthzean instances we have the exceptive phrase rapexréds Néyou Topvetas (ui) emt ropvela), Which is not found in the other Synoptic parallels, Mk 104, Lk 1618. A serious question is involved con- cerning the permissibility of divorce. The phrase is rejected as a later interpolation by many of the best modern scholars (see under ii. 4d).