2. EFFECT OF THE TRANSLATION INTO GREEK.— In view of the fact that we have Jesus’ words only in a translation (the original of which has probably passed out of existence), it will be always a wise proceeding to attempt to reproduce the Aramaic form of the words of Jesus which have come down to usonly in Greek. By this process, even though success in it can be only partial, an atmosphere for interpretation is obtaimed, and shades of mean- ing are disclosed which would otherwise escape us. Unless we get back into the Semitic world to which Jesus belonged and in which He worked, we can never completely understand Him or His teaching. It is therefore a proper and useful undertaking upon which a number of excellent scholars are now engaged,}+ to restore by conjec- ture the original Aramaic of Jesus’ words. Some of the results already reached are of importance, and still greater things may be expected of it in the future. It is likely that to some extent the yariant vocabulary in the Greek of parallel Gospel
assages can be explained as the result of trans- ation, a single Aramaic term being represented in the several translations by two or more synonym- ous Greek words.
A thorough study of the Septuagint in close comparison with the Hebrew text, showing how translators actually put Hebrew into Greek, gives a valuable insight into method, and furnishes criteria for judging of the Aramaic original behind the Greek of our Gospels. Various degrees of literal and free rendering of the Aramaic can. be seen in our two accounts of the Sermon on the Mount. Sometimes the translators have been unable to find exact Greek equivalents for the Aramaic words; sometimes they have imperfectly comprehended, and therefore have failed exactly to reproduce, the Semitic ideas; sometimes they
*See this view defended by J. Weiss, Predigt Jesw von Reiche Gottes2 (1900), pe 53-57, against Wellhausen, Jsyqel- itische w. Jtidische Geschichte? (1897), ch. 24.
+See Resch, Logia Jesu (1898), who endeavours to recon- struct in Hebrew the Matthean Logia, which he regards as the primary source for the material of the Synoptic Gospels; sug- gestive for this study is his reconstruction of the Sermon on the Mount, pp. 19-29. Further, Marshall, artt. in Mapositor (1891-2); Dalman, Worte Jesu, i. (1898); E, A. Abbott, Clwe: A aon. through Greek to Hebrew Scriptwre (1900); Nestle, SK 1896).
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
have placed a current interpretation upon Jesus’ sayings ; sometimes they have expanded the sayings as they put them into Greek to remove ambiguity, or to improve the literary form. These and other inevitable phenomena of translation appear in this discourse of the First and Third Gospels, and must be adequately dealt with in an exposition of its contents.
3. THEME OF THE DISCOURSE AND ITS DEVELOP- MENT.—It is the unanimous opinion of all students of the Sermon on the Mount (whether they regard its contents as original or compiled), that the discourse as it appears in Mt 5-7 and Lk 6-49 has a real unity, presenting a definite theme and developing it logically and effectively. If an actual discourse of Jesus constitutes the nucleus of these accounts, the unity of the Sermon is original with Jesus, notwithstanding the presence of certain extraneous material in the Gospel reports. But, even on the supposition that there was no historical Sermon, still the unity of this discourse in Matthew and Luke remains, and is to be attributed to the sources used by the Evangelists, or to the Evangelists themselves. We have seen good reason, however, for holding that the Sermon, as it comes down to us, rests upon a real, event and contains excerpts from a great discourse of Jesus, whose theme and development are here pre- served. What the theme is must be carefully considered. There are differing shades of opinion and various statements on this point. The crucial question seems to be: Is the theme of the dis- course to be found in the Beatitudes (Mt 53-?= Lk 6*-*5) or in the verses about the fulfilment of the Law (Mt 517-20) ?
Tf the theme lies in Mt 517-20, as is maintained by some,* several conclusions must follow. (1) The Beatitudes, given both in Matthew and in Luke as the beginning of the discourse, are extraneous matter brought in from some other connexion, or are merely introductory, containing no essential element of the discourse. (2) The account in Luke omits the very verses of the discourse which con- tain the theme, since Mt 57-20 has no parallel in Lk 6° ; yet Luke’s discourse has a theme, and an excellent one, in the promulgation of a perfect life of patience, trust, love, service, and obedience. (3) To find the theme in Mt 5!7-?9 is to make the discourse an apologetical one, in which Jesus was defending Himself against the charge of destroying the OT Law. What follows, however, in 57!~48 is not at all in accordance with this conception, for Jesus’ teaching in these verses abrogates the OT Law in some points, and in other points supersedes it by a higher ideal of thought and conduct ; in other words, He is here showing how little rather than how much He has in common with that legal system—He criticises rather than defends it. (4) Or, the theme in Mt 5!-° may call for a polemical discourse in condemnation of the perverse Pharisaic interpretation of the OT Law. But the occasion of this discourse did not suggest or make appropriate a polemic against Pharisaic conceptions any more than a defence of Himself against Pharisaic charges. If we can trust Luke to have given us the substantially correct setting of the Sermon, it was an address to the Galilean multitude who followed Jesus, eager to hear His words, well dis- posed towards Him, and many of them already His professed disciples. Jesus had just formally chosen twelve men to assist Him in His work, which was now assuming the character and pro- portions of a new religious movement. At this juncture a discourse of a negative quality, apolo- getical or polemical, would have been unsuitable and unwise. The occasion called for a positive, comprehensive setting forth of what this new