* The number of Beatitudes is counted as seven by Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Késtlin, Lange, Meyer, Nosgen, Steinmeyer, B. Weiss. The arguments for this view are that Mt 510-12 does not really co-ordinate with vv.311 to make an eighth Beatitude, that Matthew has an intentional parallel to his Beatitudes in the seven Woes of ch. 23, and that probability is in favour of the sacred and frequent number seven being used instead of eight. Bacon (Sermon on the Mount, p. 127) counts seven Beatitudes by regarding Mt 55 as a marginal gloss interpolated from Ps 371., The Beatitudes are counted as eight by Achelis, Bleek, Feine, Hahn, Heinrici, Ibbeken (although he holds that they correspond closely to the Ten Commandments), Keil, Keim, Kiibel, Tholuck, H. Weiss, Weizsicker, and many others. Delitzsch (Neue Untersuchungen, p. 76) enumerated them as ten, to complete their parallelism with the Ten Command- ments; but this view has found little acceptance.
+ Since v.10 and vv.11.12 have a common theme and are actual duplicates, it may be that the one or the other passage is not original in this connexion. The Beatitudes had originally a short form, and were probably of about equal length. Given one of these passages at this point, the other might easily have become topically associated with it. That this has happened is further suggested by the fact that while v.10 is given in the third ee form, like the other Beatitudes in Matthew, vy.11.12 are given in the second personal form, like the Beati- tudes of Luke. Achelis and B. Weiss, however, regard all three verses as original, saying that at v.11 Jesus turns to speak directly to His disciples. Whether, on the former theory, v.10 would be the extraneous passage or vy.11.12 (so Feine, Hilgen- feld, Weizsicker, J. Weiss), it is difficult to decide. H. Holtz- mann thinks all three verses foreign to the connexion. But the unity of the eight Beatitudes is not affected by the question of duplicate material in these verses.
{ Most commentators endeavour to show a special meaning and significance in the Matthzan arrangement of the several Beatitudes. Tholuck, Bergrede®, p. 56f. (Eng. tr. p. 64f.) : ‘These eight Beatitudes are arranged in an ethical order. The first four are of a negative character. They express the state of spiritual desire which belongs to the indispensable conditions of participation in the Kingdom of God. The next three following are positive: they set forth what attributes of character are required in the members of that Kingdom. The eighth shows how the world will treat the members of the Kingdom.’ How- ever, ‘the progression among the qualities pronounced blessed is not to be regarded as of such a nature that each stage ex- cludes the rest; or that, in advancing to another, the former are left’ behind.’ Achelis, Bergpredigt, pp. 73-75, classifies the first four Beatitudes as pertaining to the desire for salvation, the second four as pertaining to the possession of it ; he further subclassifies them also. H. Weiss, Bergpredigt, pp. 9, 23, re- gards the first four as passive, the second four as active. Feine, Jahro. f. Protest. Theol. 1885, thinks the eight Beatitudes make four neatly-fitting pairs. Ibbeken, Bergpredigt?, p. 19, says that the effort to find a close logical order in the Beati- tudes as they stand has been unsuccessful. Heinrici, Berg- predigt, i. 28, thinks that if they had been arranged logically, according to their inner relation, the order would have been Nos. 1, 4, 6, 3, 5, 7, 2, 8. It is scarcely necessary to say that the idea that in their present arrangement the Beatitudes indicate the several consecutive stages of normal Christian growth is a purely fanciful one.
16 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
however, to suppose that Jesus insisted upon a particular suc- cession of them.*
Of much more importance is the question whether Matthew or Luke presents the more authentic form of the Beatitudes. The difference between them is of two kinds: (1) Luke gives the Beatitudes in the second person, in the form of direct address ; while Matthew has them in the third person, in the form of a general statement (see a similar phenomenon in Mt 317 =Lk 322), An examination of Jesus’ other Beatitudes recorded elsewhere in the Gospels indicates that He used both forms, and apparently without preference for either. The OT Beatitudes are in the third personal form. But since Matthew agrees with Luke in giving the remainder of the discourse (from 5! onwards) in the second person, some scholars hold that the Beatitudes themselves were originally of this form.+ On the other hand, a change to the second person in the Lukan account might arise from the materialistic interpretation which has been cast over the Beatitudes and Woes in this Gospel. The change would make the Beatitudes personal and specific to his hearers, instead of general and universal as in Matthew. (2) The word- ing of the same Beatitudes is in some respects strikingly dif- ferent in the two accounts. Concerning the first Beatitude (as suggested above, i. 4), it seems probable that Matthew’s form of it, while conveying more explicitly Jesus’ meaning, has been expanded in transmission by the addition of 4 xvejue:, the original Aramaic form of the utterance being shorter, as in Luke.{ The fourth Beatitude (Luke’s second) presents a some- what similar case ; when Matthew says, ‘Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness,’ it is possible or even probable that Jesus’ words were shorter (as suggested by the Lukan form) by the implication rather than the expression of the idea contained in ry dixesordyzy, perhaps also of that con- tained in the dfavres. These words, too, may have been added to prevent a materialistic misinterpretation. Since the idea of hungering spiritually was common in the OT, Jesus may have used the o rewdyres alone with that meaning, the additions being made later to remove all ambiguity. In the second Beatitude (Luke’s third) the zevbodvres of Matthew and the zauiovses of Luke are probably two varying Greek words em- ployed to translate one Aramaic word ; the former is the better in this context, since it carries a deeper, finer meaning. The double occurrence of viv in Lk 621 is an obvious importation. In regard to the eighth Beatitude (Luke’s fourth), concerning patient endurance and spiritual growth under persecution, one notices that Luke has no peo to the first of the two dupli- cate forms in which Mt 510 gives it; instead, Lk 622.23=Mt 511.12, A comparison of these passages shows general thought agreement, but much difference in wording ; nor can there be any doubt that the Lukan form of the Beatitude is secondary (consider especially 622b. 23b),