. 18). But the discourse has a double character, for it also ‘indicates the point at which Jesus steps forth from His forther reserve with respect to the ever-increasing hostility of the Pharisees and scribes, and engages in open war against them’ (p. 18). It was this that made the picking out and the union of the disciples a necessity. The occasion of the Sermon, as of the appointment of the Twelve with which it was immediately con- nected, was the daily increasing labours of the Pharisees against
* Steinmeyer’s analysis is entirely formal—it does not char- acterize the material. The whole treatment is shallow, uncritical, and disappointing.
+ From Plummer’s view of Luke’s discourse it seems fair to conclude that he would hold Matthew’s discourse to be practi- cally original as it stands. If so, this statement of the theme of Mt 5-7 is unsatisfactory, since the Jewish contrast appears only in 517-48 61-6.16-18 71-5, less than one-half of the whole Sermon. But this conception of the Sermon is also shown to be inadequate by the fact that it lacks the breadth, point, and positiveness which the circumstances of the Sermon on the Mount required.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT 13
Jesus and their persecution of His followers, which called out a pele manifesto from Jesus and a positive resistance (p. 33).
e makes five divisions of the Sermon: 517-37 538-48 61-18 619-34 71-11 ; the introduction is 511-16, and the conclusion 712-27, while the Beatitudes 53-10 form a réswmé of the whole teaching.*
The compilation view, which sees in the discourses of Matthew and Luke a larger or smaller quantity of extraneous sayings, is held by the great majority of scholars, who can be represented here by quotations from but a few. Some members of this class have the same large idea of the theme of the Sermon on the Mount as the seven just named. Godet (Collec- tion of the Four Gospels, and the Gospel of Matthew, 1899, p. 185) says that ‘the report of this discourse in Matthew is a work of a composite order, in which have been combined many heterogeneous elements ; but this does not deny that there was really a great discourse of Jesus.’ The passages which he thinks belonged originally to other connexions are Mt 57-12. 25. 26. 29-32 67-15. 19-34 7(6). 7-24. 21-23 (pp, 132-134). The purpose of the Sermon was ‘the installation of the true people of God on the earth by the proclamation of the only righteousness conform- able to the holy nature of God, which should characterize the true members of His people, in opposition to the formal right- eousness inculcated by the traditional teaching and the example of the doctors. This righteousness, far from being contrary to the law, is the very fulfilment of it, since the meaning of the law has been falsified by those who call themselves its inter- preters’ & 135).— B. Weiss (Meyer-Komm. wi. d. Mattevgm. 1898) holds that a primitive Logian account of the Sermon was _ essentially shortened by Luke but largely expanded by Matthew. ‘Tf we remove the additions of our Evangelist, we get the form of an original discourse which may well be substantially the Sermon of Jesus, by reason of its unity of thought, its certain prologue 51-12 and epilogue 715-27, its highly important theme 517-20, with the exposition in twice three antitheses against the scribal interpretation of the law 52. 27f. 31f. 33-37. 38-42. 43-48 ; also in twice three antitheses against the practices of the Pharisees 61-4. 5f. 16-18 71f. 35.12, with their genuine reflexion of the con- ditions of the time’ (p. 163). Therefore the extraneous matter in the Matthzan account is 513-16. 23-26. 29.30 67-15.19-34 76-11, Jn the discourse ‘ clearly the opposition to the prevailing teaching of the law and the Pharisaic practice of righteousness form the leading point of view and historical motive’ (p. 164).—Tholuck (Die Bergrede Christi5, 1872 [Eng. tr. from ed.4, 1860]) thinks that there is some indication of compilation, as perhaps Mt 525. 26. 29. 30 67-15 71-11 (p, 22), but hesitates to pronounce against any specific passages ; he defends the Matthzan position of the Lord’s Prayer 67-15 and of the important section 619-34, Jesus’ purpose in the Sermon was ‘to exhibit Himself as the fulfiller of the law, and to enunciate the Magna Charta of His new kingdom.} . . . To exhibit the new economy of the kingdom of God as the truest fulfilment of the old; in this the condemna- tion of the superficial religion of Pharisaic Judaism was of course implied’ (pp. 14, 15). The Sermon must have contained throughout a strictly progressive train of thought, but this disappears in Mt 619-711 by the fault of the Evangelist.—Bruce (Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. i. 1897) presents a novel theory : the material in Mt 5-7 is a literary assemblage of vari- ous teachings given during a period of instruction. It is supposed that the Beatitudes were given on one day, teaching concerning prayer on another day, warning against covetous- ness on a third day, and soforth. ‘As these chapters stand, the various parts cohere and sympathize wonderfully, so as to
resent the appearance of a unity’ (pp. 94, 95).—Achelis (Die
ergpredigt, 1875) holds that ‘the speech of Mt 5-7 is to be regarded as a work of compilation, in which the genuine Sermon of Jesus was combined with sections from other dis- courses into a new unity’ (p. 491). The portion Mt 53-618 is the actual nucleus of the Sermon, and 713-27 was the actual close ; but the entire portion 619-712 consists of extraneous matter brought in here from other connexions (p. 400). In this great discourse Jesus ‘set before His disciples the norm and the essence of the righteousness of the Kingdom of Heaven’ (p. 321).—Wendt (Die Lehre Jesu, vol. i. 1886) regards the speech as in ig a compilation, the foreign passages being Mt 513-16. 26, 27. 29b. 30 7-15. 19-34 76-11. 19. 20. 22. 23,—Feine (Jahrb. f. Protest.