That the shorter form in Luke is more genuine is the opinion of many scholars. Dr. E A. Abbott thinks ' it is more probable that Luke represents tlie letter of the original words of Jesus more closely than Matthew, however niucli tlie latter may better represent the spirit of them' [Enc. Brit » X. 798»). But the words which better repre- sent the spirit of the teaching may also rest on the authority of Jesus. Though tiie two versions represent the same discourse, the one discourse may not have been delivered with such formality as many theories ini))ly. It is more than probable that the longer form in Matthew omits some of our Lord's comments on tliese sayings. The dif- ferent versions of the eightli Beatitude in Matthew iJoint to tliis condu:,ion. The declaration of blessedness having been made in its most general fonn, it is then reaffirmed and expounded in its special bearing upon the men to whom our Lonl was speaking. The Apostles will have the pri\i- lege of bearing ' the reproach of Christ,' and as sharers in tlie experience of tlie prophets they shall receive the prophets' reward (cf. He ll-«). Other Beatitudes may in like manner have been restated in a more specific form. For example, all who would enter the Kingdom of heaven need to be told that its blessings are bestowed on the poor in spirit ; but it is to His true disci)iles and not to the multitude that Jesus says, ■ Ye, in your poverty, are blessed.' The argument for the primitive character of Luke is stated (Expositor, 5th series [1895], vol. ii.) succinctly and forcefully by Professor Adeney. The sayings of whicli Matthew gives a longer version than Luke are described as expositions of ' the hidden truth con- tained in the shorter utterances.' The Beatitudes peculiar to Matthew are not relegated to an
editor, but are held to be the true teaching of our Lord, though probably not in their original context. The literary problem is complicated by the absence from Matthew of the four Woes, wliich in Luke (6-^"^") correspond to the four Beatitudes. The theory that Luke gives the more primitive form involves the assumption that Matthew omitted the Woes and inserted an equal number of Blessings. Yet Wright's conclusion, after a thorough study of the Synoptic problem, is that the Woes in Luke are either ' conflated from another source' or 'editorial inversions of the Blessings.'
The theory that Matthew gives the Beatitudes in their more primitive form has the support of Tholuck and Aleyer among older writers, and more recently of H. Holtzniann and Beyschlag. On the authority of one who probably heard these words of Blessing, the Beatitudes peculiar to Matthew are regarded not only as authentic say- ings of Jesus, but also as parts of the original discourse. Holtzniann also holds tliat Luke modi- fied the language of Matthew in accordance with his own ascetic views {Hand-Comm., ' Die Synop.,' p. 100) ; but this supposition is not essential to the theoi-y. The shorter form of some Beatitudes in Luke may faithfully represent the words of Christ, perhaps His own special application of a general truth to His disciiiles. Dr. Bruce, who has no bias in favour of ' antiquated Harmonistic,' suggests that, as a critical description of Mt 5-7, 'The Teaching on the Hill' is probably more correct than ' The Sermon on the Mount ' ; ' teach- ing ' {didaxv) as distinguished from ' preaching ' [KTipvy/ia) implies both the announcement of a theme and its expansion. It follows that two fonns of a Beatitude may be authentic, ' the one as theme, the other as comment.' According to this view, the theme of the first Beatitude is given in Luke, but in Matthew 'one of the expansions, not necessarUy the only one.' It is of little moment whether the shorter form is primary, i.e. the enunciation of a theme afterwards ex- pounded by our Lord ; or secondary, i.e. His own narrowing of a general assertion previously made. On either supposition, Luke, ' while faitlifully re- producing at least a part of our Lord's teacliing on the Mil,' may state that teaching ' not in its origins isetting, but reailapted so as to serve the jn'actical purpose of Christian instruction' {Tlw Expositur'.'i Gn;I: T,sl., vol. i. pp. 94fl'., 509).
3. Ordrr „,„l ..,„„■. don of thmccfht.— The order of the sec (111(1 (unl third Beatitudes is reversed in Codex Bez;i; and the Vulgate ; so also Clem. Alex., Aug., Orig., Eus., Greg, of Nyssa. Tholuck thinks that this change from the best authenti- cated order was made on mystical grounds ; either because the promise of tlie lower good should im- mediately follow that of heaven (Orig.), or because 71} ie|)resents mystically a higher stage of blessed- ness (Creg. of Nyssa).
Ill the generally accepted order of the Beatitudes a sequence of thought may be traced, though the ' scale of grace and glory ' is perhaps not so care- fully ' graduated ' as some have supposed (cf. Amb. on Lk 6). Tlie first grace — poverty of spirit— is the germ of all the rest ; the first and last Beatitude is the all-comprising word — ' tli(iirs is the kingdom of heaven.' The six Beatitudes that intervene unfold dili'eient aspects of Christian virtue and set forth its iieculiiir blessedness, for each blessing iiromised is the littiiig reward of the inward "race, and each is included in the promise of the Kingdom. Dr. Fairbairn (Studies in the Life of Christ) divides the Beatitudes into two classes—' those of resignation and those of hope ' ; the first four Beatitudes are placed in the former class, the last four in the latter class. This division is simple, and serves to