Counts
Proceeding now upon the view which has been elaborated, that the two discourses con- tained in Mt 5-7 and Lk 6”°-* are variant reports of one historical Sermon on the Mount, it becomes an important consideration which of the two reproduces the Sermon with the greater complete- ness and accuracy.
The question is as to their relatiwwe excellence, for the phenomena of the accounts and the vicissitudes of transmission show that neither the First nor the Third Gospel has perfectly reproduced the content and wording of the original discourse. In content, Matthew has much more than Luke of that material which is commonly recognized as having been an essential portion of the Sermon, namely, Mt 5% 61-7. 16-18; compare with this Lk 620-28.
27-36 ~=TLuke or his source omitted most of this section, apparently on the ground that it was inapplicable to the Gentiles, for whom the account was prepared.
* This omission was perhaps justi- fiable for the practical purpose of a Gospel, although innumerable Gentiles ever since Luke’s day have preferred the Sermon of the First Gospel, as we now do; but however that may be, from a historical point of view such an extensive omission could leave only a seriously incomplete account of the discourse.
The further section of the Matthean discourse (61°-4) may or may not have been a part of the historical Sermon; opinion is quite evenly divided upon this point, and there seems no con- 8o B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ti. d. mage p. 163; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 58; Pluinmer, Comm. on Luke, p. 183; Wernle, Synopt. Frage, p. 62; Bacon, Sermon on the Mount (1902), pp. 86-39 ; and most other scholars. SERMON ON THE MOUNT 7 clusive evidence either way.
The fact that Luke places this material in 1272-81, where it has a topical connexion with what precedes it (12-2), suggests another occasion, although that occasion is not chronologically located by Luke. On the other hand, if the theme of the Sermon is found in the Beatitudes rather than in the verses Mt 517-9, this passage, which inculeates devotion to the Kingdom and trust in God, is germane, and marks the dis- course a8 more than an anti-Pharisaic manifesto.
For the present, at least, one may prefer to regard this section as belonging to the Sermon. In this case Luke’s account of the Sermon, which contains nothing of this portion, is again strikingly incom- plete. The final section of the Matthzean discourse (71-7) has been preserved with some fulness by Luke (6°"-*), varying less than the two precedin sections from the Matthean account.
It will appear farther on, that in both the Matthzan and Lukan reports there are some brief extraneous passages which cannot have been in the original Sermon, such as Mt 5%- 2%. 81. 82 g7-18 76-11. 22.28” J) 673-26. 38a, 39.40.45, But in this kind of variation the two reports have both expanded the historical discourse.
Considering the relative contents of the Sermon in Matthew and Luke, there can be no doubt (even waiving the question of Mt 619-4) that the First Gospel presents a much more com- plete account of the Socom than that presented by the Third Gospel.t * It seems impossible to suppose that Luke could have had before him the Sermon in the form in which it now appears in the First Gospel. This is also the opinion of Wernle (Synopt. Frage, p. 80), Bartlet (art. MaTTHEW in vol. iii.), O.
Holtzmann, (Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 21), and of Heinrici (Bergpredigt, i. 10). Heinrici says the two reports of Matthew and Luke ‘are recon- structions of a discourse restored independently by Matthew and Luke rather than in dependence upon one another or upon the same written source.’ The Evangelists have re-worked their material, but that alone cannot explain the phenomena of the two accounts.
Would Luke have delibeediay broken up a col- lection of teachings so usefully grouped as in the Matthean accounts, and have scattered them so unreasonably through seven chapters of his own work? On the other hand, the First Evangelist might, so far as the Sermon is concerned, have had Luke’s account before him. His own report was surely better than Luke’s, and so would not be altered into conformity with the latter.
The general phenomena of the two Gospels, how- ever, are against this particular interrelation, and the pre- vailing opinion assigns Matthew’s Gospel to a somewhat earlier date than Luke’s. t It is asomewhat difficult matter to explain the absence of the Sermon from the Gospels of Mark and John. The Only porallels in Mark to any of the Sermon material are Mk 421. 24 948. 47. 50 1011 1125; in John, 1316 (1520), And these sayings are only possible parallels, t.e.
they need not have come into the Gospel of Mark from accounts of the Sermon. The opinion of Ewald, H. Holtzmann, Keim, and Wittichen, that Mark originally con- tained the Sermon, but that it has disappeared from the canonical work, cannot be accepted. Feine (Jahrb. f. Protest. Theologie, 1885, p. 4), is right in holding that Mark did not use the sources which, containing variant accounts of the discourse, were used by Matthew and Luke independently.
It seems quite certain, however, that Mark could not have been ignorant of the Sermon. If that discourse did not appear in his sources, oral and written, it must have been because he voluntarily limited those sources, The Sermon was altogether too highly valued and too widely used in the Apostolic age to have escaped any careful compiler of the Gospel Memorabilia. This would be esp. true of Mark, who, if common opinion is correct, had an ultimate Petrine base for much of his material.
Is it imaginable that Peter did not give the Sermon a prominent place in his teaching? Surely Maik must have known the Sermon. Why, then, did he omit it from his Gospel? A plausible explanation, which may be the true one, is this :— When Mark wrote his Gospel, about 65-70 a.p.
, the Matthean Logia (in various Greek forms) was in general use; this Logia passed over the narrative material of the story of Jesus, and consisted mainly of a collection of Jesus’ discourses and shorter sayings; it included the Sermon, although in what precise form it is very difficult to determine—probably not that in which it appears in either of our canonical Gospels.
Now Mark’s Gospel, in striking contrast, reports mainly the acts and events of Jesus’ public ministry, giving much less attention to the teaching (the longest sections of discourse material are in 218-22 323-80 41-32 68-13 76-23 934-38 91.39-50 1024-31. 38-45 1128-25 12. 13). Perhaps Mark wished to put into more com- plete and permanent transmission that other side of the Gospel story which was neglected in the Logia.
If so, it was unnecessary for him to repeat the Sermon and certain other discourse elements of that work, since he wrote to complete the SERMON ON THE MOUNT In wording, a like verdict of superior excellence falls to the Gospel of Matthew. Since both Gospels contain the discourse in Greek, therefore in translation we cannot find in either of them the ipsissima verba of Jesus (except for the few Aramaic words transliterated, as in Mt 5”).
But when we ask which Gospel has more accurately transmuted into Greek the ideas that Jesus ex- ressed in Aramaic, which has more faithfully interpreted His meaning in this teaching, there are many indications that Matthew gives the better record. A complete study of the parallels in the two accounts of the Sermon shows that in almost every instance there is a greater authen- ticity in the Matthean account; of this a few Ulustrations will suffice.
(1) The first Beatitude is variously worded (Mt 5 pakdpior ol mrwyxol rw mved- pate; Lk 67° waxdpro of wrwxol). It is perhaps true that the Lukan form corresponds more nearly to the Aramaic utterance of Jesus, which may not have had a term corresponding to Matthew’s ro mvedpart; the important consideration, however, is as to the idea rather than the form.
In the Lukan Beatitude, material poverty is intended, as is shown conclusively by the converse woe in 6% oval duiv rots rovalors (woe could not be pronounced upon those who were spiritually rich). But in the atthzan Beatitude the ambiguous term rrwyol— corresponding to the OT ony (Ps 69%, Is 61") and osvax (Ps 10916, Is 14°), and standing in the LXX for those Hebrew words (see art. Poor in vol. iv.)
, with a primary moral and spiritual import—is made explicit for the moral and spiritual signification by the addition of the phrase r@ zvedpart, to protect the Beatitude from the material interpretation which had made its impress upon Luke’s source. Thus Matthew has preserved Jesus’ original meaning of the first Beatitude (perhaps at the expense of its form); of course it is the meaning rather than the form that is of value.
(2) In Mt 588=Lk 6%-36 there are many indications of the secondary char- acter of Luke’s material: Mt 5 does not appear; the idea of lending (Lk 6% ) is a disturbing im- ortation ; instead of reAdvac Luke has aduaprwrol ; t 5% is given in a non-Jewish form—éceode viol ‘Tvlorov instead of brws yévnobe viol rod marpds Suav Tod év ovpavois; Mt 5%» does not appear, nor the term of éOvccoi of Mt 57; and the reminiscence of Dt 18% in Mt 5% cece . .
rédev is replaced by a non-Jewish and much weaker yivecOe olxripuoves. That is to say, Luke’s account lacks the Palestinian setting, the local colour, the Jewish phrases, and the OT allusions, besides introducing an extraneous practical element. (3) A similar practical addition or expansion of Mt 77> may be seen in Lk 6%; a true teaching, but foreign to the context. Similarly Lk 6%.
(4) In the Mt 7 and Lk 6%} forms of the ‘Golden Rule’ (quoted above), the current record of Christ’s life, not to produce a new Gospel which should antiquate and supersede the Logia. This appears also in the fact that the present Greek Matthew combines prob- ably the Matthean Logia with the Gospel of Mark (plus some additional matter) into a quite extensive account of the life of Christ.
What makes this theory somewhat unsatisfactory is the fact that no small amount of Jesus’ sayings actually con- tained in Mark’s Gospel was in all probability present in the Logia, e.g. Mk 41-20 § 91. 39-50 12; but perhaps an explana- tion for this can be found. At any rate, the problem of Mark’s omission of the Sermon cannot yet be considered solved.
As for the absence of the Sermon from the Gospel of John, the entire character of that book offers a probable reason for its omission, The author has distinctly chosen not to reproduce Synoptic material, but to make a Gospel with different contents, and setting forth Gospel truth ina different way. That he passes over the Sermon is, therefore, not at all due to his ignorance of the discourse, but to his motive, according to which he passes over all the Synoptic discourses (Mt 5-7. 10. 13. 18.
21-25, Lk 6. 10-21), and most of the narrative matter as well. Nor did he, in passing by all this, wish his readers to regard that part of the Gospel story as unhistorical or unessential. He chose to treat @ particular phase of Christ’s life and personality—what he probably considered the highest phase. This Gospel was de- signed to illumine, not to supersede, the others.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT Matthwean wording approves itself as being a better reproduction of what we may understand Jesus to have said; the Matthean phrase odros ydp éorw 6 vouos cal ol mpopfra: is absent from the Lukan account on the constant principle of expunging Jewish elements.
(5) The same principle explains the significant difference of wording in Mt 774 (od mas 6 Aéywv por Kupre kpie eloededoera els THY Baotrelay Trav ovpayGv, adX 6 wordy 7d OédAnwa Tod matpbs you Tod év Tots ovpavots)= Lk 6% (rk 5é we kadeire Kupre xtpie, kal ob roveire & Aéyw;).
(6) It is obvious in a comparison of the Matthzean and Lukan accounts (quoted above) of the closing parable of the Sermon that the Palestinian colour and the vivid picturesqueness of the story as given in the First Gospel do not appear in the commonplace, secondary expressions of the Third. (7) To these six illustrations from the parallel reports of the Sermon must be added the twofold account of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 69-8 = Lk 11*"4), which is discussed below (under ii.
4/4), and most Mee S shows the relative merits of the Matthean and Lukan reports of Jesus’ teaching. It is not to be denied that the Matthean form may be somewhat expanded from the original Aramaic ; but this has to do with form rather than with substance, and the expansion is in the interest of the true interpretation of the Prayer. Here, also, we note (see the two accounts quoted above) the absence from Luke of the Jewish hrases which speak of God as in heaven, and of is ‘will’ as supreme.
The comprehensive and deeply ethical and spiritual term épeAjuara of Matthew is replaced in Luke by the conventional term duaprias. And the petition for deliverance from evil, a characteristically Jewish conception, is expunged. It cannot be doubted that the strong Jewish element and Palestinian colour of Matthew’s dis- course actually pervaded Jesus’ teaching as origin- ally given. Jesus was a Jew, and spoke to Jews only ; His language and His ideas were therefore Jewish and adapted to Jews.
There is no room for a theory that this feature was a subsequent artificial transfusion of Judaism into the teaching of Jesus. But it is easy to see how just this feature was eliminated from His teaching in the course of the Gentile mission. The Gentiles neither understood nor liked the Jews, with their peculiar notions and exclusive ways. In order, therefore, to make the Gospel acceptable to them, the Chris- tian missionaries thought it necessary to wniver- salize the language of Jesus.
This has clearly been done in the case of Luke’s account of the Sermon, possibly by himself,* but more likely by a long process of elimination, through which the material had passed on the Gentile field whence Luke drew his sources for the Third Gospel. It is possible that portions of the original Sermon which were too strongly Jewish to remain in that position found their way into Luke’s Gospel apart from that discourse, and with the Jewish colouring removed.
Perhaps this is the explanation of the variant position of Mt 6%-84=Lk 1251, since the same kind of elimination of the Jewish element is apparent here, ¢.g. Ta meretvd, Tod odpavod is replaced by rods képaxas; 6 marhp tudv 6 odpdvos is replaced by 6 @eés, note the peculiar addition in Lk 12%; ra éOvy is replaced by mdvra ra €Ovy 0d Kécpou (a clear * Bacon, Sermon on the Mount (1902), p. 109f.
, says: ‘It was indeed, from the standpoint of the historian of Jesus’ life and teaching, a disastrous, almost incredible mutilation to leave out, as our Third Evangelist has done, all the negative side of the teaching, and give nothing but the commandment of minister- ing love toward all.
Wecan scarcely understand that the five great interpretative antitheses of the new law of conduct toward men versus the old [Mt 521-48], and the three corresponding antitheses on duty toward God [Mt 61-18], could have been dropped in one form of even the oral tradition’; but the Third Evangelist has done this in order to ‘concentrate the teaching upon the simple affirmation of the law of love.
’ SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 9 alteration to remove the disparaging -reference to the Gentiles’ love for material wealth and power) ; again, the absence of 6 ovpdvios in Lk 12%; and the absence of tiv duxavocdvyy avrod (a technical Jewish term) from Lk 124, There would seem, therefore, to be no room for question that, historically con- sidered, the Sermon as given by Matthew is of much greater authenticity than the Sermon of Luke, since it has better preserved the actual contents of the historical discourse, its theme and development, its Jewish elements, its Palestinian colour, and the true interpretation of its sayings ; and, in addition to these merits, the Matthsean account has a Greek style of higher literary skill and finish.
In this preference for the Matthean report of the Sermon nearly all scholars are now agreed.* But this relative superiority of the account in the First Gospel does not mean its absolute authen- ticity. This account is still but a series of excerpts from the historical Sermon, marred by the inci- dents of long transmission, showing the inevitable effects of the process of translation, and containing certain passages which originally belonged to other occasions (see below).
Even in some cases we are uncertain whether the ideas themselves of Jesus are not misrepresented by the wording of Mt 5-7. Two instances about which there has been much dispute may be mentioned.
In Mt 518” the peculiar tone of Jewish literalness has led many scholars to postulate a Judaistic-Christian colour- ing of Jesus’ words in these verses, since they seem quite foreign to His anti-literal utterances and ee Every explanation of them as coming in just this sense from Jesus is beset with difliculties, and fails to satisfy completely (see under ii. 4c). Again, in Mt 5” we find a most significant addition to the teaching of Jesus concerning divorce.
This saying probably belongs to the occasion with which it is associated in Mt 19°12, where it is repeated. In both the Matthzean instances we have the exceptive hrase wapexrds Adyou mwopvelas (ui emt roprela), which is not found in the other Synoptic parallels, Mk 10", Lk 1678. A serious question is involved con- cerning the permissibility of divorce. The phrase is rejected as a later interpolation by many of the best modern scholars (see under ii. 4d).
But if we cannot think of the Sermon in Matthew as presenting an absolutely authentic account of that historical discourse, we may yet feel much certainty that it contains many essential teachings from that discourse with substantial trustworthi- ness. In the Evangelists’ reports of the Sermon we have not complete historical accuracy, but practical adequacy. 5. PRESENT TEXT OF THE DISCOURSE.
—The text of the Sermon as it finally took form in the First and Third Gospels has come down to us through the centuries with less variation than might have been expected ; it is in excellent condition. The number of variations is not many hundred, and few of them are of special importance. The Textus Receptus of the 16th cent. (and therefore the AV of 1611 A.D.), compared with the text given us by the great uncials of the 4th-6th cents.
, shows here as elsewhere numerous elements of assimilation, emendation, revision, and variation; but these have been excluded in the critical texts of the modern editors, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, the English Revisers, and others. The most con- spicuous changes are the dropping out of words and phrases which have been imported into the * The constant preference shown by H.
Holtzmann, Wendt, and a few others for the Lukan account of the Sermon as against that of Matthew is, in view of these considerations, a mistake. It is not a true historical criticism to eliminate from the records of Jesus’ teaching as much as possible of the char- acteristic Jewish element, or to give the place of honour to the briefer and more fragmentary of two parallel accounts.
text of one Gospel to assimilate its readings to the text of the other, and the literary ‘improvements ’ which the scribes have introduced. The variations which are of importance for interpretation will be treated in their respective places below. il. INTERPRETATION.—AII\ study of the origin and transmission of the Sermon on the Mount is but a preparation for its interpretation, just as all study of its interpretation is but a preparation for its practice.
Both lines of preparation are essential if the teaching is to be understood historically and comprehensively, and is to be applied truly and thoroughly.
Surely the untrained English reader can find through the Sermon the spiritual assurance and strength which he needs, and an ideal of life which can determine his conduct in the limited sphere in which he thinks and acts; the gospel is for all, and essentially intelligible to all, rather than the exclusive possession of the educated few (as is the case with intellectual systems of theology, philosophy, ethics, and the like).
But when the Sermon is used—as it can and should be used—to illumine the great problems of religion, of morals, and of society, every resource of spiritual capacity, mental ability, and the acquisition of learning should be brought to bear upon this supreme teaching of Christ, in order that it may exert its due and proper influence upon the world. 1. POPULAR, GNOMIC, AND FIGURATIVE STYLE. —Interpretation must take full account of the literary style in which Jesus chose to express Himself.
That style, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the Synoptic Gospels, was distinctly popular and Oriental. Too often Jesus’ teaching has been handled as though it were a systematic, scientific treatise on theology and ethics, whose expressions were fittingly to be subjected to laboratory test, each element to be exactly determined by finely-graduated measuring- rod or delicate weighing-scales.
No greater mis- take could be made, and the results so obtained must be hopelessly incorrect and perverse. Micro- scopic analysis is a radically wrong process to be applied to Jesus’ teachings.
For He chose to deal with the masses, and His ideas were expressed in language which they could hear and consider, If at times He disputed with the learned men of His nation, and in doing so in part adopted their dialectical method (see the Johannine discourses), still this was not His main interest or His chief field of work. The common people were open- minded and receptive: to them, therefore, He addressed His teaching.
It was to the Galileans that He gave Himself and His message, while in Jerusalem and elsewhere He had to defend both against the hostile leaders.
As He taught the multitudes, in their syna- gogues, upon the highways, along the seashore, and on the hillsides of Galilee, He put His re- ligious truths and ethical principles into concrete popular sayings, contrasting His ideal of life in many simple ways with the conventional notions and practices, and illustrating His teaching from the ay avocations, experiences, and environment of His hearers.
Entirely free from scholasticism and intellectualism, He did not tell the how and why of things, nor present scientific definitions, nor deal in abstractions; but with Divine wisdom and skill He taught those things One reading should be given to the Sermon in Mt 5-7 with no other intent than to note Jesus’ remarkably fine and abundant allusions to things around Him—religious practices, ethical conceptions, commerce, industries, agriculture, animals, plants, home life, house furnishings, civic institutions, social customs, the conduct of men, human needs, fortune, and misfortune.
His observation and sppresiaticn ‘of everything was unequalled, and the relative valuation which He placed upon things was the true norm of all subsequent judymen’. No poet—not even Shakespeare—has seen so clearly, felt sc truly, or pictured so perfectly the hearts and lives u. wen. 10 SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT which it is essential for all men to know.
The religious facts and truths which He presented form the foundation of Christian theology, and His instruction concerning human conduct must lie at the root of any true system of ethics; but He did not teach these subjects in the manner of the ancient or modern schools. He put His ideas in such a way as to make His knowledge universal. He spoke with a simplicity, insight, and fervour which would appeal to all serious listeners.
It was a part of Jesus’ method to use all kinds of figuratwe language. That was natural to Him as an Oriental, and by no other means could He have reached the Orientals who formed His audi- ences. Similes, metaphors, all kinds of illustra- tions, parables, hyperbolical expressions, were constantly upon His lips.* We have constantly to be on our guard against interpreting literally what He has spoken figuratively.
t The Sermon peents the true righteousness, the ideal human life, popularly and practically portrayed and en- jomed. To treat tlis teaching as scientific ethics 1s to produce confusion, But to draw from it the essential principles of ethics is to find light and peace for mankind. Many of Jesus’ utterances, especially in this discourse, are of the gnomic type in poetic form— a style so effective in the Wisdom literature of the OT and Apocrypha.
The wise men of Hebrew history, particularly after the Babylonian exile, put into this attractive literary dress their crystalli- zation of experience, their philosophy of life, their instruction for conduct and practical affairs. This was a favourite style of teaching with the Jews— a fact that was at once the cause and the motive for Jesus’ adoption of it. As a literary mode of expression, Jesus used the gnome,, as He used the pene: with consummate art.
t Even the translation of these sayings into a radically dif- ferent language has, not destroyed their literary finish, rhythm, and symmetry, e.g. the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and many other passages in Mt 5-7. The simplicity, lucidity, and energy of Jesus’ utterances mask the art with which they were fashioned. Not that we are to conceive of Jesus as labouring over His literary productions to bring them to perfection, but that ideal thought intuitively found ideal expression.
Jesus’ supreme interest was assuredly not in mere letters, but in the truth He taught. Yet this included the vital lodgment of the truth in the minds and hearts of men, and to this end the language in which He clothed His teaching was of great importance. The uniqueness of Jesus manifests itself in the ability to present His teaching acceptably and effectively, as well as in His perfect insight into the truth itself.
yregio tree Jesus calls the disciples the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt 513.14), Symbolically, He com- mands the plucking out of the right eye (529), Figuratively, He speaks of the mote and beam (73-5), of the pearls before swine (75), of the narrow way Me 14), of the false prophets (715), of the tree and its fruits (716-20), He gives the parable of the Two House-builders (724-27).
And most difficult of all to interpret correctly, we have His hyperbolical utterances, in which He says more than He means, setting forth a principle rather than a rule of conduct, and leaving its application to the judgment of men. Such are the four famous ‘non-resistance’ injunctions (539-42), and the sayings concerning the secrecy of benevolence (63), prayer in the closet only (66), anxiety for the necessaries of life (625. 34), answers to prayer (77f-), and the ‘Golden Rule’ qr).
+See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 74-112; Tholuck, Bergrede5, p, 169 ff. [Eng. tr. p. 165f.) {See Heinrici, Bergpredigt, i. 19-26; Kent, Wise Men of Ancient Israel2 (1899), pp. 176-201; Briggs, ‘The Wisdom of Jesus the Messiah’ in Hapository Times, 1897, viii. 393-8, 452-5, 492-6, ix. 69-75. Dr. Briggs says: ‘Jesus put His wisdom in this poetic form for the reason that Wisdom had been given in the artistic form of gnomic poetry for centuries, and was so used in His time.
If He was to use such Wisdom, He must use its forms. Jesus uses its stereotyped forms, and uses them with such extraordinary freshness, fertility, and vigour that His gees transcends all others in its artistic expression’ (viii. 895 But not only was Jesus the true successor of the OT sage. The Hebrew prophets also gave their messages in remarkably fine literary form, as in the Psalms, Isaiah, and Amos.
And the prophetic utterances of Jesus, too, were clothed in language full of beauty, fire, and force. Indeed, Jesus was more a prophet than asage.* He taughtnotsomuch as a philosopher of this life; rather, as a seer who has a vision of a higher life which is to be produced in men. Jesus’ earnestness and tempered zeal in His teaching were more persuasive and searchin than the fervour of any preceding prophet of trut and righteousness.
In the Sermon on the Mount He showed men the ideal life, but that was not all —He strenuously urged them to attain it. They must forthwith do the will of God which He had made plain to them (Mt 77!-®7), Active love, self- denial, and service He fixed as absolute require- ments for those who would be members of the kingdom of God.
In these utterances the voice of the true prophet is heard proclaiming God’s will and demanding that ‘justice roll down as waters, and righteousness as an everflowing stream’ (Am 5%). Jesus was both wise man and prophet, but greater than either and greater than both; and never greater than in the Sermon on the Mount, where He immeasurably surpassed every lawgiver, seer, and sage.
It is with this supreme apprecia- tion of Jesus and His teaching that one should enter upon the specific interpretation of His words in Mt 5-7 and the Lukan parallels. 2. EFFECT OF THE TRANSLATION INTO GREEK.— In view of the fact that we have Jesus’ words only in a translation (the original of which has probably passed out of existence), it will be always a wise proceeding to attempt to reproduce the Aramaic form of the words of Jesus which have come down to us only in Greek.
By this process, even though success in it can be only partial, an atmosphere for interpretation is obtained, and shades of mean- ing are disclosed which would otherwise escape us. Unless we get back into the Semitic world to which Jesus belonged and in which He worked, we can never completely understand Him or His teaching. It is therefore a proper and useful undertaking upon which a number of excellent scholars are now engaged,t to restore by conjec- ture the original Aramaic of Jesus’ words.
Some of the results already reached are of importance, and still greater things may be expected of it in the future. It is likely that to some extent the variant vocabulary in the Greek of parallel Gospel assages can be explained as the result of trans- ation, a single Aramaic term being represented in the several translations by two or more synonym- ous Greek words.
A thorough study of the Septuagint in close comparison with the Hebrew text, showing how translators actually put Hebrew into Greek, gives a valuable insight into method, and furnishes criteria for judging of the Aramaic original behind the Greek of our Gospels. Various degrees of literal and free rendering of the Aramaic can be seen in our two accounts of the Sermon on the Mount.
Sometimes the translators have been unable to find exact Greek equivalents for the Aramaic words; sometimes they have ae eae | comprehended, and therefore have failed exactly to reproduce, the Semitic ideas; sometimes they *See this view defended by J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes2 (1900), pp. 53-57, against Wellhausen, Jsrael- itische wu. Jiidische Geschichte? (1897), ch. 24.
+See Resch, Logia Jesu (1898), who endeavours to recon- struct in Hebrew the Matthzan Logia, which he regards as the primary source for the material of the Synoptic Gospels; sug- gestive for this study is his reconstruction of the Sermon on the Mount, pp. 19-29. Further, Marshall, artt. in ZF. (1891-2); Dalman, Worte Jesu, i. (1898); E. A. Abbott, Clue: A Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture (1900); Nestle, SK (1896).
SERMON ON THE MOUNT SERMON ON THE MOUNT 11 have placed a current interpretation upon Jesus’ sayings; sometimes they have expanded the sayings as they put them into Greek to remove ambiguity, or to ever the literary form. These and other inevitable phenomena of translation appear in this discourse of the First and Third Gospels, and must be adequately dealt with in an exposition of its contents. 3. THEME OF THE DISCOURSE AND ITS DEVELOP-