* Grawert’s theory is composed of two parts which are not interdependent. (1) His analysis of the discourse, parcelling out a number of verses to each Beatitude as its epitome, is artificial and reaches absurdity when it is forced to make ‘Blessed are they that mourn’ oD the epitome of the saying about the mote and the beam (73-5), Certainly the Beatitudes contain the essential ideas of the Sermon, which are developed, made concrete, and illustrated by the teaching which follows. But no such absolute connexion between the Beatitudes and the contents of the discourse can be shown as shall guarantee that every verse of Mt 5-7 was a part of the original Sermon. Not only this, but he has entirely ignored the phenomena of Luke’s parallel account and the distribution of much of Matthew’s discourse through chs. 10-14. 16 of the Third Gospel. (2) The conception which Grawert has of the theme, occasion, and pur- pose of the Sermon might as readily be held in conjunction with a mild compilation theory, and unquestionably contains a great deal of truth. The main objection to it is that it presses to an extreme the idea of the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus and His followers at this stage of the ministry, and postulates a much sharper separation between the Christian and the Jewish adherents than was then at all probable. é
+ A similar view concerning the theme of the Sermon is held by Baur, Neander, Delitzsch, Ebrard, Ewald, Meyer, Kostlin, and Hilgenfeld.
Theologie, 1885, pp. 1-85) holds firmly to a historical discourse, and regards the Matthew account as the more authentic, but separates as extraneous matter Mt 511-16. 18f. 23-26. 29-32 67-15. 19-34 76-11. 13f. 19f. 22f. (p. 84). The theme of the Sermon is the true righteousness as against the current Pharisaic conception and practice of righteousness (p. 35).—Bacon (Sermon on the Mount, 1902) argues stoutly for an actual discourse of Jesus, and defends the account of the First Gospel as the more complete. The por- tions which did not originally beveng to the Sermon are Mt 55. 7-10. 13-16. 18. 23-26. 29f. 67-15. 19-34 76-11. 13-17.19-283, He calls the Sermon ‘the discourse on the Higher Righteousness’ (p. x), and thinks it ‘worthy to be called the new Torah of the Kingdom of God’ (p. 35).
H. Holtzmann (Hand-Comm. u. d. Synoptiker 2, 1892) thinks the speech is a work of compilation im toto by the Evangelist, whose aim was to furnish an order of life for the new Church (p. 99). The theme of the entire discourse is in his opinion to be found in Mt 517-20 (p, 103). —Weizsicker (A post. Zeitalter®, 1891) also regards the Sermon as a collection by the Evangelist of passages adapted to the instruction of the primitive Church (p. 378 f.). — Heinrici (Die Bergpredigt, vol. i. 1900) similarly views Matthew’s discourse as a free composition from scattered authentic sayings (pp. 10, 39). As to the theme of the Sermon, ‘the whole appears as the Magna Charta of true discipleship to Jesus’ (p. 13).—Ibbeken (Die Bergpredigt Jesw?, 1890) offers a striking view which calls for careful consideration. According to him, the First Gospel was designed throughout to show a close parallelism between the events of Israel’s history and the events of Jesus’ life, as may be seen in the Evangelist’s treatment of the Infancy Narrative (chs. 1. 2), the Baptism (ch. 3), and the Temptation (ch. 4). Then when the author comes to the Sermon (chs. 5-7) he provides for Jesus a multi- tude explicitly described (425) as representative of all the Hebrew territory, drawing significantly the parallelism between the giving of the Law on Sinai and the second giving of the Law by Jesus on ‘the mount of Beatitudes’ (cf. Mt 51 728 with Ex 193 249.13), The contents and arrangement of the Sermon also correspond, Ibbeken thinks, with the Sinai law-giving. There are four chief sections of the Matthzan account : 53-45 concern- ing ethical perfection (the Beatitudes corresponding to the Ten Commandments), 61-18 concerning piety, 619-34 concerning the highest good, 71-12 concerning the judging of members of the Kingdom of Heaven ; then follows an epilogue 718-27 containing earnest warnings and admonitions to faithful obedience to this new law (pp. 1-11). He declines to decide whether this paral- lelism between the old and the new law-giving was drawn by Jesus Himself or only by the Evangelist : ‘ however many may be the grounds for thinking that the speech was first put together out of the Matthean Aramaic Logia by the author of the First Gospel, the possibility remains that Jesus Himself gave the discourse in this form and on this occasion. . . . It seems to me to be unnecessary for the understanding of the Sermon to determine whether Jesus Himself actually gave it in this form, at this time and place, or whether the material of it was first gathered together by Matthew out of scattered single sayings and arranged in this way’ (pp. 5, 6).*
But granting, as seems necessary, that the Sermon on the Mount, as it comes down to us in twofold form, is in some degree a compilation, though with the nucleus of a historical discourse, it is yet possible to recognize that the material as it stands in Matthew and Luke has a kind of unity, by the consonance of all Jesus’ religious- ethical teaching, and by the intelligent grouping of the additional matter within the framework of the actual address. And considering that in those sections of the discourse which are original we have mere excerpts from the whole, only a small part of all that Jesus said in that epoch-making discourse, we can still feel confident that in these verses the theme of the Sermon is before us, and many of the essential ideas—a sufficient number to show the main development of the theme by Jesus. If an