But if we cannot think of the Sermon in Matthew as presenting an absolutely authentic account of that historical discourse, we may yet feel much certainty that it contains many essential teachings from that discourse with substantial trustworthi- ness. In the Evangelists’ reports of the Sermon we have not complete historical accuracy, but practical adequacy.
5. PRESENT TEXT OF THE DISCOURSE.—The text of the Sermon as it finally took form in the First and Third Gospels has come down to us through the centuries with less variation than might have been expected ; it is in excellent condition. The number of variations is not many hundred, and few of them are of special importance. The Textus Receptus of the 16th cent. (and therefore the AV of 1611 A.D.), compared with the text given us by the great uncials of the 4th-6th cents., shows here as elsewhere numerous elements of assimilation, emendation, revision, and variation; but these have been excluded in the critical texts of the modern editors, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, the English Revisers, and others. The most con- spicuous changes are the dropping out of words and phrases which have been imported into the
*The constant preference shown by H. Holtzmann, Wendt, and a few others for the Lukan account of the Sermon as against that of Matthew is, in view of these considerations, a mistake. It is not a true historical criticism to eliminate from the records of Jesus’ teaching as much as possible of the char- acteristic Jewish element, or to give the place of honour to the briefer and more fragmentary of two parallel accounts.
text of one Gospel to assimilate its readings to the text of the other, and the literary ‘improvements’ which the scribes have introduced. The variations which are of importance for interpretation will be treated in their respective places below.
iil. INTERPRETATION.—AIl| study of the origin and transmission of the Sermon on the Mount is but a preparation for its interpretation, just as all study of its interpretation is but a preparation for its practice. Both lines of preparation are essential if the teaching is to be understood historically and comprehensively, and is to be applied truly and thoroughly. Surely the untrained English reader ean find through the Sermon the spiritual assurance and strength which he needs, and an ideal of life which can determine his conduct in the limited sphere in which he thinks and acts; the gospel is for all, and essentially intelligible to all, rather than the exclusive possession of the educated few (as is the case with intellectual systems of theology, philosophy, ethics, and the like). But when the Sermon is used—as it can and should be used—to illumine the great problems of religion, of morals, and of society, every resource of spiritual capacity, mental ability, and the acquisition of learning should be brought to bear upon this supreme teaching of Christ, in order that it may exert its due and proper influence upon the world.
1. PopULAR, GNOMIC, AND FIGURATIVE STYLE. —Interpretation must take full account of the literary style in which Jesus chose to express Himself. ‘That style, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the Synoptic Gospels, was distinctly popular and Oriental. Too often Jesus’ teaching has been handled as though it were a systematic, scientific treatise on theology and ethics, whose expressions were fittingly to be subjected to laboratory test, each element to be exactly determined by finely-graduated measuring- rod or delicate weighing-scales. No greater mis- take could be made, and the results so obtained must be hopelessly incorrect and perverse. Micro- scopic analysis is a radically wrong process to be applied to Jesus’ teachings. For He chose to deal with the masses, and His ideas were expressed in language which they could hear and consider. If at times He disputed with the learned men of His nation, and in doing so in part adopted their dialectical method (see the Johannine discourses), still this was not His main interest or His chief field of work. The common people were open- minded and receptive: to them, therefore, He addressed His teaching. It was to the Galilzans that He gave Himself and His message, while in Jerusalem and elsewhere He had to defend both against the hostile leaders.
As He taught the multitudes, in their syna- gogues, upon the highways, along the seashore, and on the hillsides of Galilee, He put His re- ligious truths and ethical principles into concrete popular sayings, contrasting His ideal of life in many simple ways with the conventional notions and practices, and illustrating His teaching from the ordinary avocations, experiences, and environment of His hearers.* Entirely free from scholasticism and intellectualism, He did not tell the how and why of things, nor present scientific definitions, nor deal in abstractions; but with Divine wisdom and skill He taught those things
* One reading should be given to the Sermon in Mt 5-7 with no other intent than to note Jesus’ remarkably fine and abundant allusions to things around Him—religious practices, ethical conceptions, commerce, industries, agriculture, animals, plants, home life, house furnishings, civic institutions, social customs, the conduct of men, human needs, fortune, and misfortune. His observation and appreciation of everything was unequalled, and the relative valuation which He placed upon things was the true norm of all subsequent judgment. No poet—not even Shakespeare—has seen so clearly, felt so truly, or pictured so perfectly the hearts and lives of men.