P'or such reasons it is now generally admitted that the three chapters in Mt. contain sayings of Jesus which were not parts of the original Sermon. This fact, however, does not justify the assertion that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount ' is a com- position rather than an actual address' (Moffatt, EBi, vol. iv. col. 4377). While Bacon rules out the matter which is not in Lk 6, and is scattered over other parts of Lk. , he alloAvs that the Sermon, apart from such interpolations of alien sayings of Jesus, is a connected discourse (The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Structure, etc.). Votaw, while admitting some inter^jolations, vindicates the greater part of Mt.'s rendering of it (loc. cit.^ pp. 7-9). The fact that we have a block of Lofjia't here inserted in the narrative of Mt. is no proof that much, if not all of it, may not belong to a single discourse. Moreover, the descriptive intro- duction (4^^-5') indicates an important discourse given on a specific occasion. It is the same with the parallel in Lk 6^^"^". Then there is a clearly marked unity in those parts of the Sermon in Mt. that remain after the apparently alien matter has been removed, and this is the case with the whole of Lk.'s shorter version. Nor need we cut down the Sermon to the limits of what is contained in Lk., for there was an evident reason for the Third Evangelist's omission of the references to the Pharisees and to Jewish customs which Mt. has preserved, since the former was writing for Gen- tiles who would not be interested in these matters ; while, on the other hand, they are evidently integral to the discourse as this is given in Mt., because they help to bring out the ethical prin- ciples of the new order that Christ was introducing by contrast with the old order that He was super- seding.
3. Original form. — A comparison of Mt 5-7 with the parallel passages in Lk. (especially with the discourse in Lk 6) raises the question as to which of these two versions of our Lord's utterances is the more original. For, while it has been main- tained (by Auger, Greswell, Osiander, Patricius, Plumptre, Sadler, etc.) that we have here reports of sermons given on two occasions, this view is not widely accepted by scholars at the present day.* It is not to be denied that Jesus may have repeated the same discourse on more than one occasion. But, in the present case, it is to be observed : (a) Each Evangelist has only one report, neither betraying any knowledge tliat the Sermon was preached twice. (6) Both Evangelists describe the same circumstances in introducing the Sermon — i.e. the gathering of the multitude, the collecting of disciples, and the connexion of the scene with a mountain (for though in Mt. the Sermon is on the mountain and in Lk. on a level place after Jesus had conie down, this is only one of the small dis- crepancies invariablj^ met with in separate accounts of the same event, and, in fact, it does not involve a direct contradiction even in the details referred to), (c) The character of the Sermon and its position in the life and work of Christ give it a unique value as the presentation of fundamental principles for the guidance of Christ's disciples in their conduct among men. But if we grant that we have here two reports of one and the same dis- course, the striking differences between them lead us to ask. In what form was this discourse actually given ? In the first place, it cannot be that either
* See Paul Feine, ' Ueber das gegenseit. Verhaltniss d. Texts der Bergpredigt bei Mat und Luk.' (Jahrb. f.prot. Theol. xi. 1) ; also Plummer, 'St. Luke' {ICC), pp. 176-179. VOL. n. — 39
of the two Evangelists simply used and altered materials that he had derived from the other, for on wider grounds it seems to be demonstrated that neither drew upon the other in any case ; the pro- bability is that while both knew Mk., neither the First nor the Third Evangelist knew the other (see Wernle, Die Synopt. Frage, p. 20). Nor can so violent a dealing with his materials be charged against either Evangelist. For a similar reason, we cannot suppose that they were both dependent on the same version of Matthew's Logia ; because, if so, one or both of them must have treated its venerated contents — consisting of reports of the sayings of Jesus — in the same unscrupulous way. They must have been working on two differ- ent collections of Logia, though perhaps both originally based on Matthew's Hebrew collection ; and the divergence must have taken place earlier — among irresponsible transcribers — by more gradual stages. But if this be the case, the task of de- termining between the two reports is exceedingly difficult. Probably neither can be preferred in all respects to the other. In some cases Mt. appears to be the more correct, but in other cases the probability is with Luke.
In this connexion the most important question is that of the original form of the Beatitudes, in regard to which the following points claim our attention : (1) In Mt. there are 7 (or perhaps 8) Beatitudes ; in Lk. there are 4 Beatitudes, followed by 4 Woes which do not appear in Mt. (2) The Beatitudes in Mt. are (all but the last) in the 3rd person : those in Lk. are in the 2nd person. (3) The Mt. Beatitudes describe character and its corresponding rewards ; those in Lk. describe only .social conditions and the future reversal of them. Now, in favour of the originality of Mt., it may be urged that the greater spiritual value of its version of the Beatitudes points to their originality, for we cannot believe that it was given to copyists and catechists to greatly enrich their Master's teach- ings. On the other hand, the following points should be noted : {a) It is not denied that the four Beatitudes not found in Lk. are genuine and char- acteristic sayings of Jesus. Assuredly the blessing on the pure in heart, which is among them, fell from His lij)s. But we may admit the genuineness of the sayings and yet deny them a place in the original Sermon on the Mount ; for it has been shown above that Mt.'s three chapters contain insertions of sayings of Jesus spoken on various occasions. (b) The First Evangelist — or St. Matthew himself, the author of the Logia — else- where makes collections of sevens. Thus he gives 7 clauses in the Lord's Prayer (6^"^^), 7 parables (ch. 13), 7 woes (ch. 23). The genealogy consists of a triad of fourteens (P"^^). [See Hawkins, Hor. Synopt. pp. 133, 134]. We know that Jesus uttered beatitudes on other occasions (e.g. 11® 13^^ 16" 24'*^). (c) It is difficult to think that if our Lord gave the sayings originally with their ethical and spiritual characterization, this could have dropped out ac- cidentally, or have been deliberately eliminated so as to confine them to social relations. To attribute the alteration to St. Luke's ' Ebionism ' is to accuse the Third Evangelist of an offence in flat contradiction to his honest, declared purpose (kclhoI 7rapr]Ko\ovdr]K6Ti Avuidev iraaiv aKpi^u;, Lk P). (d) If, however, Jesus gave the Beatitudes as in Lk., His disciples may have discerned in them a deeper meaning, knowing that He was accustomed to speak in parables ; or He Himself may have ex- plained them, for Ave must remember that in the Gospels we have excerpts from the teachings of Jesus, pregnant sayings, parables, and aphorisms that stuck in the memory, while the fuller ex- position which must often have followed is rarely given, perhaps never completely, (e) It is more