Tliis repetition of the word ' blessed ' in what is here called the eighth Beatitude is the gi'ound assigned by; some for dividing it into two Beati- tudes. Wright {Synopsis of the Gosjjels in Greek, p. 161) speaks of nine Beatitudes. In his judg- ment, however, the ninth, which is longer and in the second person, is an 'explanatory enlargement' ; lie is also disposed to regard the eighth short Beatitude as ' an editorial compilation, for the second half of it is repeated from the first Beati- tude, and the commencement is an abbreviation of the ninth.' The so-called ninth Beatitude is best regarded as an enlargement of the eighth, but no sufficient reason is given for rejecting the eighth.
Delitzsch is alone in holding that there are ten Beatitudes in Mattliew to correspond with the Decalogue. To obtain the number ten he not only counts vv.'° and " as the eighth and ninth Beatitudes respectively, but also treats v.'- as the tenth Beatitude. The words ' rejoice and be ex- ceeding glad' (v.'-) are regarded as equivalent to 'blessed.'
2. The relation of the two versions.— OiAy four Beatitudes are given in I>k 6-°"-^ ; the relation of these to the eight Beatitudes in Matthew is one of the unsolved problems in NT criticism. The dif- ference between Matthew and Luke is shown in the following table, the variations in Luke being printed in italics : —
' Blessed are
1. ' the poor in spirit : for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven.' {!.) ' ye poor : for yours is the kingdom of God.'
2. ' they that mourn : for they shall be com-
forted.' (5.) ' ye tluit weep now : for ye shall laugh.'
3. ' the meek : for they shall inherit the earth.'
4. ' they that hunger and thirst aft«r righteous-
ness : for they shall be fiUed.' {2.) 'ye that hunger now : for ye shall be filled.'
5. ' the merciful : for they shall obtain niercv.'
6. ' the pure in heart : for they shall see God.'
7. ' the peacemakers : for they shall be called
sons of God.'
8. ' they that have lieen persecuted for right-
eousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
ye when men shall reproach you, and perse- cute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake, liejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in heaven : for so i)ersecuted they the prophets which were before you.' (4.) ' ye when men shall hate ycni, and wlicn they shall separate you front their ccmipccny, and reproacn you, ana cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy : for beliold, your reward is great in heaven : for in the same manner did their fat/iers unto the prophets. ' The chief elements in the problem to be solved are : tlie presence in Matthew alone of Beatitudes 3, 5, 6, 7 ; Luke's variations from Matthew's wording of Beatitudes 1, 2, 4, 8, especially (a) the absence from 1 and 4 of words which make blessedness depend upon spiritual conditions, and {b) the use of the second person throughout. This uroblem is part of a larger problem, viz.. Do Matthew and Luke reixjrt the same discourse? and if they do, which account is the more primi- tive t (See art. SERMON ON THE MOUNT).
BEATITUDE
BEATITUDE
179
The view that Matthew and Luke narrate two different discourses is now generally abandoned. This theory accounts for all the variations, but it leaves unexplained the remarkable resemblances in the general purport of the teaching, the frequent identity of phraseology, and the close agreement "f the introductory narratives and of the closing parables. Therefore, the question to be asked in regard to the two versions of tlie Beatitudes is part of the larger question -. How is it that in two reports of the same discourse there are so many variations?
Some modern critics distinguish hetwecnpriinartj and secondary Beatitudes, though different reasons are assigned in support of this distinction. (1) Wright (q/). cit.) regards Beatitudes 1, 2, 4 as primary; they belong to 'the proto-Matthceus,' because they are also found in Luke. The other Beatitudes have been ' added at different dates as recollections occurred.' But the non-occurrence of a saying in Luke is no i)roof that it is ' secondary,' unless it is certain that Luke is more primitive, and not a selection from the more original tradi- tion in Matthew. (2) Weiss (in Meyer's Com,.) describes the same three Beatitudes as authentic, because they noint to the righteousness of the Kingdom as the summum bonuni ; the first to righteou.sness as not yet possessed, the second to the want of righteousness as a cause of sorrow, and the fourth to righteousness as an object of de- sire The reasoning is entirely subjective. Weiss tests the authenticity of a Beatitude by its accord witli his theory that the tlieme of the discourse is the nature of true and false righteousness ; on his own principles other Beatitudes might be proved authentic. The seventh might be said to point to tlie righteousness whose work is peace.
When the nanatives in Matthew and Luke are taken as they stand, the question remains : Which version of the Beatitudes more correctly repre- sents the actual words of Christ?