610 SERMOJS" ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
likely that Jesus, when addressing His own dis- ciples, would have used the 2nd person than that a later hand would have turned the 3rd person style of speech into the 2nd. The direct address is the more original in form ; it would be natural for catechists to generalize this, rather than the reverse. We cannot say that it was according to St. Luke's style for the 2nd person to be substituted for the 3rd, for the reverse is the case ; almost every other ascrip- tion of blessedness in Lk. is in the 3rd person (i.e. 145 723 1023 ipv. 28 123- 38. 43 1415 2329)^* ^^hile lu Mt. we
have benedictions in the 2nd person {i.e. 13'^ 16^^ although 11® 24^® are in the 3rd person). Mt. even concludes the Sermon on the Mount Beatitudes with one thrown into the 2nd person style (5''). (/) It must be admitted that the Woes upon the rich seem out of place in an address to Christ's disciples. These, like the Beatitudes in Lk., are in the 2nd person ; they must be taken as apos- trophizing the absent. Still, it was our Lord's method on other occasions to speak antithetically (e.g. Mt 619-20 713.14.24-27 gu. 12) Qn the Avhole, these considerations point to Lk.'s as the original version of the Beatitudes.
In the teaching on divorce, Lk.'s absolute state- ment (16'*) must be preferred to Mt.'s more quali- fied form of the saying (5^-), containing the clause irapeKTos \6yov iropveias, although tliat recurs in Mt 19'' (so Holtzmann, Hand-Corn. ; but Swete, .S"^. Mark, accepts the clause as original), because (ffl) it is not found in the more primitive version of the saying in Mk 10"- ^^ and (5) the softening of an apparently liarsh saying by a gloss was in accordance with the tendency of scribes.
The case of the Lord's Prayer is more difficult. We saw above that the way in which it is intro- duced in Lk. points to the conclusion that the original setting of it was in the incident there recorded rather than in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus may well have given the Prayer more than once (so Bernard in Hastings' DB, vol. iv. p. 43"^), but in Lk. it certainly appears as something new for the benefit of the disciples in answer to their request, and this is later than the version in the Sermon.
The two versions are as follows :
Hallowed be thy name. Thj' kingdom come.
Give us day by day our daily (IcTiova-iov) bread.
And forgive us our sins : for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temp- tation.
Mt 69-13 RV. Lk 112-4 RV.
Our Father which art in Father, heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us this day our dailj' (iiTiouinov) bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And bring us not into temp- tation, but deliver us from the evil one.
AV of Lk. had all the clauses in Mt., but there is ample justihcation for the omissions seen in KV (see art. Lord's Prayer, p. 57''). They could easily have come in through assimilation to Mt. The enrichment of the Invocation would be a natural growth. Elsewhere Mt. shows a penchant for the use of the word ' heaven. ' Thus he, and he alone, has the expression ' the kingdom of heaven,' else- where invariably ' the kingdom of God.' In Ro 8'^ we have ' Abba, Fatlier,' as the Christian invoca- tion ; cf. Mk 14^® (see Wellhausen, Einleit. in die drei crstcn Evangelien, p. 38). The clause ' Thy will be done,' etc. (which is better attested than the other omitted words, since it is in i^), may be re- garded as an expansion of the clause which pre- cedes it — ' Tliy kingdom come' — founded on words of Jesus spoken on another occasion (Mt 26^^, Mk
* Lk 141-* is in the 2nd person ; but this takes the form of a promise, not that of benediction ; similarly Lk 122.
14"«, Lk 22^2) Tj^g ^^^^ clause in Mt. may be taken as the antithesis and completion of the clause ' and bring us not into temptation. ' These points seem to be in favour of the originality of Lk. Nevertheless, it was the Mt. fuller form of the Prayer that was adopted in the Church, as far as we have evidence, from the earliest time, for tliis is the form in the Didache (viii. )i Both forms must be traced to a common Greek tr. of the Aram, original, since they both contain the rare and difficult word iwioixnov. Dr. Chase considers that they both exhibit the Prayer as changed for liturgical purposes. * Dr. Plummer considers that Mt.'s form of the Prayer is the nearer to the original (Hastings' Z>i? iii. 141 f.). Thus he points out that the 56s 7}tuv a-fifiepov of Mt 6" is more likely to be genuine than the 8i8ov rjfiiv t6 Kad' rifiepav of Lk iP, because (a) Kad' ij/ji^pav occurs in NT in St. Luke's writings only (Lk 19-'^ Ac 17"), and (b) the present form of the verb (Sldov), which this involves, is an exception to the forms in the other clauses, which have aorists, as Mt. has here (56s).