^^ofTr^s 
 
 4?0t06ICAL SE^"$^ 
 
 ^c 
 
 ~ 
 
 14-18 
 3\Z 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 ITS LITERARY STRUCTURE 
 AND DIDACTIC PURPOSE 
 
 A Lecture delivered at Wellesi.ey College May 20, 1901 
 am' subsequently revised and enlarged with the 
 
 addition oe tlikee appendices 
 
 Adapted to exhibit by Analytical and Synthetic 
 
 Criticism the Nature and Interconnection 
 
 of the Greater Discourses of Jesus 
 
 by 
 
 BENJAMIN W. BACON, D.D. 
 
 Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and 
 Exegesis in Yale University 
 
 Krto gorfc 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd. 
 1902 
 
 Ail rights rcseritd 
 
Copyright, 1902, 
 By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 
 Set up and electrotyped March, 1902. 
 
 Norfooot) $rf8S 
 
 J. S. Cushinp; & Co — Berwkk k Smith 
 Norwoud Mass. U.S.A. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Teachers of biblical science are increas- 
 ingly conscious of the need of a text-book 
 of the higher criticism. This method is no 
 longer an experiment. The New Testa- 
 ment, the Gospels above all, can be inter- 
 preted, as they have been in the past, 
 without it ; but the modern teacher who 
 is ignorant on this score is justly consid- 
 ered incompetent. Baleful or beneficent, 
 it must be understood. 
 
 Moreover, the discourses of Jesus furnish 
 a problem that nothing else has solved and 
 to which these methods must inevitably be 
 applied. No scholar has ever attempted 
 the construction of a gospel harmony with- 
 out again and again being compelled to 
 resort to expedients which do not repre- 
 sent the real meaning of his authorities. 
 No student has ever penetrated beneath 
 the surface of a " harmony " without dis- 
 
vi Preface 
 
 covering again and again that the osten- 
 sible process is most inconsistently and 
 half-heartedly applied. In short, our four 
 authorities all differ in their form, order, 
 occasion, and connection of these sayings, 
 the most precious pearls of all literature. 
 What else can one do than compare and 
 test and try, sifting the evidence, reaching 
 back behind the reporters toward their 
 authorities, back to the original utterances 
 themselves ? And the methods for so 
 doing must be approved and systematized. 
 To say this is to say that any impartial, 
 sincere effort to furnish an example of 
 these methods in application must be wel- 
 comed if prepared with reasonable qualifi- 
 cation for the task. 
 
 Such is the purpose of the present vol- 
 ume. Its nucleus is simply a lecture pre- 
 pared for delivery at Wellesley College, 
 Massachusetts, by the condensation of six 
 lectures previously delivered to the adult 
 Bible class of the United Church, New 
 Haven. Ultimate publication was prom- 
 ised on the first occasion to those who 
 asked opportunity to obtain them in print, 
 
Preface vii 
 
 but the matter was delayed. At Wellesley 
 similar requests followed the delivery of 
 the lecture and were met by a renewal 
 of the promise. In endeavoring to fulfil 
 it the author has become convinced that 
 this is the opportunity for meeting, so far 
 as he is able, the larger need already 
 spoken of. The lecture itself is printed 
 substantially as delivered, though not with- 
 out considerable additions, as well as foot- 
 notes. But from the nature of the case 
 results could be presented by this means 
 only in outline, in a simple, semi-popular 
 way. Processes and evidences lay sub- 
 merged. For the purposes of a text-book, 
 however simple, it was needful to supple- 
 ment this general exposition of the process 
 and results by appendices devoted to an 
 exhibition in somewhat greater detail of 
 the methods and evidences. Accordingly, 
 three appendices have been added to the 
 lecture, the first mainly analytical, justify- 
 ing the transpositions of material effected 
 in the lecture to restore the original Dis- 
 course on the Higher Righteousness, by 
 comparison of the two principal reporters, 
 
viii Preface 
 
 Matthew and Luke. The second appendix 
 aims only to justify the choice of readings, 
 as between authorities, for the material 
 admitted as forming part of the Discourse. 
 The third exemplifies the possibility of 
 synthetic criticism in the restoration of 
 some of the great discourses of Jesus, 
 using nothing for the purpose outside the 
 limits of the material wrongly connected 
 by Matthew or Luke with the Discourse 
 on the Higher Righteousness, as evidenced 
 by the processes shown in Appendix I. 
 
 Completeness of treatment from this 
 point of view would of course require much 
 more. At least the great parabolic dis- 
 courses, particularly that of Mk. iv. and 
 parallels, would have to be included, if not 
 a discussion of the entire body of discourse 
 material attributed to Jesus by the synoptic 
 evangelists. But this field is fortunately 
 by no means neglected. Wendt's Lehre 
 Jesu has been followed by Julicher's great 
 work, Die Gleiclinissrcdcn Jcsu, with ample 
 discussion of the characteristic features of 
 Jesus' teaching, and every treatise on New 
 Testament theology has at least a chapter 
 
Preface ix 
 
 on the teaching of Jesus. Those of Weiss 
 and Beyschlag are fortunately accessible to 
 English readers, though Holtzmann has not 
 yet found a translator. Professor George 
 B. Stevens's recent treatise gives the Eng- 
 lish reader discussion at first hand. Our 
 object is much more limited. Since it had 
 necessarily become one of the main con- 
 tentions of our address that the longer, 
 connected discourses attributed to Jesus 
 by our synoptic evangelists, of which the 
 so-called Sermon on the Mount is the prin- 
 cipal example, are not compositions of the 
 evangelists, nor even in all cases the result 
 of mere agglutination in the formative 
 period of the gospels, it seemed well to 
 supplement the principal example of a 
 connected discourse, which certainly ante- 
 dates our canonical gospels, by others 
 which similarly might be regarded as ex- 
 amples of the preaching' of Jesus as distinct 
 from the mere apophthegms, parables, or 
 sayings. A double purpose is subserved 
 when the examples given embody the same 
 material which our analysis reveals to have 
 been mistakenly attached to the Discourse 
 
x Preface 
 
 on the Higher Righteousness; for the 
 synthesis will then corroborate the analy- 
 sis. The appended notes will at least 
 illustrate the nature of the problem which 
 confronts the would-be biographer, as he 
 endeavors by synthetic methods to ascer- 
 tain the circumstances, occasion, and con- 
 nection of these discourses. 
 
 Finally, it may do no harm to reiterate 
 that fascinating as are the problems of 
 source-analysis, particularly the conjectural 
 restoration of the Logia (a problem dis- 
 tinct from the present, which goes quite 
 behind the question of literary criticism 
 regarding documentary sources, however 
 primitive, to that of historical criticism, 
 What did Jesus say ?), the benefit of en- 
 gaging in these studies is not merely, 
 perhaps not mainly, in the direct ends 
 achieved, but in the resultant acquirement 
 of familiarity with the incomparable say- 
 ings of Jesus themselves, discriminating ap- 
 preciation of their exact original sense, and 
 historical understanding of their relation 
 to his sublime career. Let all other results 
 be null, and the insight attained in these 
 
Preface xi 
 
 ways by comparing logion with logion, re- 
 port with report, will a thousandfold repay 
 the effort ; for no study of commentaries 
 can compare with this method for elucida- 
 tion of the real meaning. 
 
 Needless to say the application of such 
 criticism involves no disrespect to our 
 evangelists. That wherein Luke himself 
 sets the example (Lk. i. 1-4) is not impi- 
 ous. That which meets our Lord's own 
 teaching as to true searching of the Scrip- 
 tures (Jn. v. 39-40; [R.V.] xvi. 13-14) 
 would not give offence to those whose 
 whole effort was to convey to us the story 
 " even as delivered to them by those which 
 from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
 ministers of the word," that we might "be- 
 lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
 God, and believing might have life through 
 his name." If in other departments of 
 biblical study the use of these methods 
 may seem inevitably to involve the over- 
 throw of traditional theories regarding the 
 authorship of various writings and the 
 infallible accuracy of the writers, here no 
 such assumptions are permissible. No one 
 
xii Preface 
 
 claims that we have the sayings in the 
 form or connection in which they were 
 uttered. No one claims that here we have 
 an original unit, which the pitiless critic 
 aches to dissect. Here the disjecta mem- 
 bra are the original datum. Analysis can 
 scarcely go further than a simple placing 
 of the four gospels side by side already 
 carries it, and as it was already acknowl- 
 edged to be when Luke set himself the 
 difficult task " to write them clown in 
 order." The work of the critic here is 
 restoration. His method must be, if only 
 for the sake of his science, to think him- 
 self to the utmost into the atmosphere and 
 circumstances, yes, above all, into the spirit 
 and ideals and feeling of Jesus of Naza- 
 reth. If there be prejudice among Chris- 
 tian people against the training of students 
 in colleges and seminaries in such a method, 
 we can await its disappearance with the 
 patience which knows it cannot be long 
 disappointed. 
 
 B. W. B. 
 
 New Haven, 
 December, 1901. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 LECTURE. The Discourse of Jesus on the New 
 Law of the Kingdom of God considered 
 with regard to its literary structure and 
 Didactic Purpose l 
 
 APPENDIX A. Analysis of the Discourse as 
 
 REPORTED BY OUR EVANGELISTS, WITH A VIEW 
 TO ASCERTAINING THE ORIGINAL OCCASION AND 
 
 Context of the Elements of Extraneous 
 Origin I21 
 
 APPENDIX B. Comparison of Readings for 
 
 Reconstruction of the Discourse . . . 175 
 
 APPENDIX C. Reconstruction of the More 
 Important Synagogue Discourses of Jesus 
 from which Elements would appear to have 
 
 BEEN ADDED BY OUR EVANGELISTS TO THE SER- 
 MON on the Mount *8i 
 
 INDEX TO SCRIPTURE PASSAGES . . .259 
 
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 
 
 A STUDY IN SYNTHETIC CRITICISM OF 
 THE GREATER DISCOURSES OF JESUS 
 
 I congratulate myself and my hearers 
 on the subject whose selection we owe in 
 part to others. The average thoughtful 
 man, if asked to define the representative 
 teaching of Jesus, will reply instinctively, 
 "The Sermon on the Mount." 
 
 The Bible is Christo-centric, whether 
 our theology be so or not. We may go 
 further. Human thought and literature 
 in its loftiest sphere, our relation to the 
 unseen Source and Goal of all, are Christo- 
 centric. An impartial historical estimate 
 will admit that Jesus' life and teachings 
 constitute the highest revelation of man to 
 himself, and since "the invisible things of 
 
 the creation are perceived through the 
 
 i 
 
 B I 
 
2 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 things that are made," this revelation is 
 also the highest of God to man. Thus in 
 our ultimate questionings the light shed by 
 him is "the light of the world." 
 
 So then, if there be anything in litera- 
 ture worth studying, it is his thought on 
 these subjects; and "study" implies, in 
 our day, the genetic method. We must 
 appreciate Jesus in relation to his times ; 
 we must take what we know of him in the 
 perspective of human thought and histor- 
 ical event, which leads up to him and down 
 from him. And when it comes to actual, 
 direct knowledge, we must come into touch 
 with him by what he says himself, rather 
 than by what any one says about him. 
 Paul, the evangelists, are but " ministers 
 through whom we believe " ; their appre- 
 ciation of him whom they knew so much 
 better than we is our indispensable means 
 of approach — but only a means. Never 
 do they render us so great service as when 
 they transmit to us unaltered, uncolored by 
 application to the exigencies of their own 
 
Tbe Sermon on the Mount 3 
 
 situation, the remembered words of Jesus 
 himself. Then we can say, with the men 
 of Sychar, " Now we believe, not because 
 of thy word, for we have heard him our- 
 selves, and know that this is indeed the 
 Saviour of the world." 
 
 And in turning thus to the most direct 
 means of approach, it is natural, too, that 
 men should not go to that gospel which is, 
 by common consent of ancient and modern 
 times, the latest in date, however well it 
 may deserve in one sense the title, " heart 
 of Christ." For in it, to an incomparably 
 greater degree, the teachings of the Master 
 are digested and assimilated to the evange- 
 list's own thought. In John we find a selec- 
 tion of the doctrines of Jesus elaborated, 
 adapted to meet the special erroneous ten- 
 dencies of theosophic speculation at the 
 end of the century in proconsular Asia. 
 We must go rather to that which, by 
 equally universal consent, emanates from 
 the soil of Palestine, and, if not itself 
 apostolic, at least embodies an indisputably 
 
4 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 apostolic collection of Sayings of the Lord, 
 the Logia, as critics designate the work. 
 The vast majority of competent scholars 
 hold, indeed, that this primitive writing, 
 described in about 125 a.d. as a collection 
 of Sayings of the Lord in Hebrew, and 
 dated by the church fathers of the second 
 century, with the full approval of modern 
 critics, in the middle sixties, is only the 
 discourse nucleus of our so-called " Mat- 
 thew," while the average layman naturally 
 makes no distinction between this and our 
 canonical Matthew. But in either case, 
 the Sermon on the Mount is the heart of 
 it; so that the. instinctive answer of lay- 
 man and critic alike to the question, How 
 shall one come into most direct relation 
 with the Man of Nazareth through his 
 own words? will here be simply, Study 
 the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 There is an additional appropriateness 
 of the subject in our case. This lecture 
 comes, if I mistake not, as the conclusion 
 of a course of study in biblical literature. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 5 
 
 You have doubtless followed the provi- 
 dential development of Israel's religious 
 ideas, that were ultimately to impregnate 
 the world, until at the opening of our era 
 their entire content, whether priestly or 
 prophetic, had come into formal concen- 
 tration in the Law — the divine, sacred 
 Torah, the one perfect revelation, as Israel 
 esteemed it, of the will and character of 
 God. There lay all the choicest product 
 of the human thought of indefinite past 
 centuries, as alternately suggested by the 
 voice of God within, and pruned and cor- 
 rected by the providence of God without. 
 There it lay, as the seeds of the coming 
 springtime lie hid in the hard, dry seed- 
 pod through the storms and frosts of 
 winter. The new religion was not new. 
 Never did Jesus or his followers consent 
 to be regarded as introducing a new 
 religion. They were interpreters, not in- 
 novators ; reformers, not iconoclasts. Mat- 
 thew attaches to the opening and fun- 
 damental proposition of the great dis- 
 
6 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 course, as he gives it, two sayings, which, 
 even if we place them elsewhere * (partly 
 on the authority of Luke, who gives the 
 first in other context), may well be authen- 
 tic, and in any case reflect as clearly as 
 they do accurately the genuine conserva- 
 tism of Jesus. " Verily I say unto you, 
 until heaven and earth fail not one iota, 
 nor turn of a letter shall fail from the law 
 till all come to pass." This is the first, 
 illustrating Jesus' respect for the revela- 
 tion of the past. And as to the relative 
 value of the work of destructive vs. con- 
 structive teaching Matthew adds a second : 
 " Whosoever, therefore, shall ' loose ' [show 
 not to be binding] one of these least 
 commandments, and teach men so [a nec- 
 essary work since otherwise its performer 
 would not be 'in the kingdom,' but one 
 least worthy of all to be coveted], shall be 
 called least in the Kingdom of God. But 
 whoso shall do and teach them, he shall 
 
 * See Analytical Notes, Appendix A (4), p. 133, and 
 compare Beyschlag, New Test. T/ieol., I, p. no. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 7 
 
 be called great in the kingdom of God." * 
 Jesus, then, conceived the new as the 
 fruitage, the glorification, the trans- 
 figuration of the old. And that gospel, 
 which, as we saw, most clearly reflects the 
 standpoint of Jesus' own age and people, 
 distinctly gives expression to this concep- 
 tion, not merely in its repeated citation 
 of Jesus' teachings to this effect, but by 
 the fact that it begins the entire story of 
 his public career by the great discourse 
 we are to study, conspicuously placing 
 the Mount of Beatitudes over against the 
 Mount of the Law, and by the whole 
 arrangement of the material indicating 
 that this is to be considered what Paul 
 calls the " Law of Christ," what James, 
 that other Hebrew of Hebrews among 
 New Testament writers, speaks of as " the 
 perfect law," a mirror of moral perfection, 
 "the law of liberty," "the royal law," 
 that is, the law of those who are children 
 of the King. 
 
 * See Text Critical Notes, Appendix A, p. 128. 
 
8 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 Pardon me if I dwell for a moment on 
 the fact ; for it is not a mere coincidence 
 that our study of Israel's Law, the out- 
 come of its ages of development in reli- 
 gious thought, should conclude with that 
 which to the view of a Jewish evangelist 
 constitutes the corresponding element of 
 Jesus' teaching. It is of importance in 
 the method of study I propose to apply, 
 whether this view of the evangelist is a 
 mere fancy of his own, or whether Jesus 
 himself actually framed a discourse hav- 
 ing this character of the Renovation of the 
 Law. I dwell on the question partly 
 because very excellent scholars have 
 strenuously denied it ; * partly because if 
 we can establish the probability of an 
 actual discourse carefully and deliberately 
 prepared by him from this point of view, 
 we shall have in our hands the master 
 
 * E.g. Oscar Iloltzmann in his Leben Jesti, 1901. 
 See per contra II. J. Iloltzmann in his Neutesll. Thel., 
 p. 131 : Das gesetzliche Judenthum bietet den positiven 
 wie negativen Ankniipfungspunkt der Predigt Jesu. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 9 
 
 key to many problems regarding the vari- 
 ous types of early Christian apprehension 
 of the gospel, Pauline, Jacobean, Johannine, 
 their relation to one another and to their 
 common authority. And this is of the 
 utmost importance, because these are the 
 channels, and the only channels, by which 
 the gospel itself is transmitted to us. 
 
 Let us first do full justice to the ob- 
 jector. He points to the fact that in 
 Luke, the Pauline evangelist, the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount in every instance 
 lacks those elements which in Matthew 
 give it the distinctive character of a new 
 Torah, a standard of righteousness (ethi- 
 cal and religious) offsetting the right- 
 eousness of scribes and Pharisees. He 
 justly maintains that we must look to 
 Paul, the radical opponent of legalism 
 as legalism, no matter how high the 
 standard, as truly reflecting the spirit of 
 Jesus. The Palestinian mother-church, 
 wedded as it was to its Judaistic particu- 
 larism, and chary of the prerogatives of 
 
10 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 the seed of Abraham according to the 
 flesh, chief among which was the hav- 
 ing been "entrusted with the oracles of 
 God," was slow to appreciate that the 
 new wine must have new bottles. Our 
 objector argues that the conception of 
 Christianity as a nova lex was charac- 
 teristic of the early catholic fathers, 
 among whom it appears as a recrudes- 
 cence of Judaism in Christian form. 
 And if a conception be meant which 
 treats the gospel exclusively or even 
 predominantly as a nova lex, it is rightly 
 designated post-Pauline. After the death 
 of Paul, the plain and easy notion of 
 legalism crept back. Religion became 
 again a matter of requirement and reward. 
 The quid pro quo system, by which scrib- 
 ism had caricatured the Old Testament 
 into, You do this for God, and God will 
 do what you want for you, returned to 
 power.* This tendency in the early 
 
 * Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestl. Theol.,y. 158: Selbst 
 die entschiedenen Worte [Jesu], welche die letztcn 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 11 
 
 church consciously to undo the work of 
 Paul we may designate neo-legalism. And 
 it had historical reality. We must grant to 
 the objector that even our Gospel of Mat- 
 thew already shows traces of the tendency, 
 as when borrowing from Mk. 10: 17-31 the 
 story of the rich Pharisee who asked Jesus 
 what good work he must do,* it removes 
 
 Tage brachten, Tempelsturz und neuer Bund, ver- 
 mochten in dem Bewusstsein der Urgemeinde den 
 Eindruck der viel langeren Zeit nicht aufzuheben, 
 welche vorangegangen war. 
 
 * The relation of dependence is here obvious as soon 
 as the parallels are brought into juxtaposition. Besides 
 the now generally admitted fact that our first evangelist 
 borrows practically the whole of his narrative material 
 from Mark, we have in the particular instance of 
 Mk. 10: i7-22 = Mt. 19: 16-22 two differences wherein 
 the change of the Markan form to the Matthsean is most 
 natural but the reverse process inconceivable, (i) Jesus' 
 disclaimer in Mark of the scribe's epithet, " Why callest 
 thou me good ?" is changed in Matthew to "Why askest 
 thou me about goodness ? " Yet even Matthew leaves 
 the second clause, " One only is good," substantially 
 as it was. (2) Matthew's version assimilates the com- 
 mandments very freely cited by Mark to the exact 
 language of the Old Testament and then supplements 
 them with the new commandment of Jesus. Surely 
 
12 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 Jesus' disclaimer of the title " good " in the 
 sense of having merit with God, and 
 changes the contrast Jesus draws between 
 a goodness which consists in mere observ- 
 ance of the common rules of morality in 
 the hope of reward, and a " faith " which 
 has renounced all to die for God's king- 
 dom. In the Matthaean form this becomes 
 a weak addition of one to the other. But in 
 its original Markan form this story might 
 be said to give Mark's equivalent to the 
 Sermon on the Mount. For by the rela- 
 tion of incident rather than discourse it 
 contrasts the righteousness of Jesus and 
 his followers, who have no " goodness " 
 save the gift of His Spirit who alone is 
 "good," but having left all are now 
 about to give their lives for the gospel, 
 with the " righteousness " of scribes and 
 Pharisees, based as it was on a punctil- 
 ious casuistry which seeks to " inherit 
 eternal life." In form, Jesus seems to 
 
 one cannot remain in doubt here as to which form is 
 secondary. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 13 
 
 accede to the Pharisee's request for a pro- 
 cess of acquiring merit, and so having a 
 claim on God for reward. In reality 
 legalism is left helpless. There is no 
 polemic, no tf/z/z'-legalism, as in Paul. But 
 the victory of faith over works is just as 
 absolute. The Pharisee is left as com- 
 pletely as the publican at the mercy of 
 God. This is the paradox of Jesus' 
 legalism, which is really the opposite. 
 We may call it quasi-legalistic. And it 
 must be admitted that our first gospel 
 misses the point when it makes Jesus 
 simply commend the young ruler for his 
 strict obedience to the ten commandments 
 (supplemented here by the Christian sum- 
 mary, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
 thyself), assure him that if he does this 
 he shall live, and then add, but if thou 
 wouldst attain the highest grade of 
 righteousness,* " go sell all thou hast and 
 
 * Et d£\eis rAeios eivai. The same word, rAeios 
 "complete," employed in the Greek mysteries of the 
 "adept," is used by this evangelist to sum up Christ's 
 
14 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 give to the poor." This representation 
 of the gospel is simply legalism keyed 
 up to a little higher pitch. What Paul 
 would have said to it we may guess from 
 his great chapter on the charism of the 
 spirit of love : " Though I bestow all 
 my goods to feed the poor, and give my 
 body to be burned, but have not the 
 divine gift of the spirit of love — it is 
 nothing." But it does not follow that 
 Jesus was legalistic because Matthew 
 shows certain tendencies of the sort. 
 Our excellent Jewish Christian first evan- 
 gelist has no idea that in making these 
 slight changes in the story of Mark he 
 is antagonizing Paul. No more than has 
 James, when he insists that a man is 
 not "justified by faith apart from works," 
 
 — a flat contradiction of Rom. 3: 28, 
 
 — but that he must add the one to the 
 other. Still less does our first evangelist 
 
 teaching of the new righteousness in the Sermon on 
 the Mount (Mt. 5:48). The corresponding passage 
 in Luke (6: 36) has oUrlpfioves "merciful." 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 15 
 
 realize that he is leaving out the most 
 vital element in the teaching of Jesus, 
 that righteousness is not merit,* but a 
 being imbued with the Spirit of Him 
 who alone is "good." He misunder- 
 stands Mark as "James" misunderstands 
 Romans. Like the excellent converted 
 Pharisees of Jerusalem in the 50's and 
 6o's, like their successors among the 
 catholic fathers, he finds himself incapa- 
 ble of outgrowing all at once an inborn, 
 inbred legalism. 
 
 In other words, our first evangelist has 
 still somewhat to learn of Christ from 
 Paul. For him Christianity is a sublimated, 
 transfigured Judaism. It is " the law and 
 the prophets " in their essential content 
 and fulfilment, and nothing more (Mt. 7:12 
 
 * The saying in Lk. 17: 7-10, " When ye have done 
 all the things commanded you, say, We are unprofitable 
 servants : we have done that which it was our duty to do," 
 puts Jesus' attitude toward the notion of righteousness as 
 merit, having a claim to reward, in his own inimitable 
 way. The parable of the Unequal Wage, Mt. 20: 1-16, 
 is aimed at the same Pharisaic error. 
 
16 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 cf. Lk. 6:31). Now since we have reason 
 to know on independent grounds that 
 Mark's representation of this incident and 
 its accompanying teaching is more original 
 and correct than Matthew's, and moreover 
 are aware from the very possibility of Pau- 
 linism that Jesus did not teach a mere re- 
 formed legalism,* the conclusion could not 
 be escaped, if the fundamental character 
 of the Sermon on the Mount prove really 
 neo-legalistic, that the composition as a 
 whole, however genuine its principal ele- 
 ments, belongs to the evangelist. It would 
 therefore represent not so much the teach- 
 ing of Jesus himself as that of the early 
 church of Palestine such as it is described 
 by James in Acts 21:20, "Myriads of 
 believing Jews all zealots for the Law." 
 Its apparent form of a new ToraJi, a more 
 refined and loftier system of ethical require- 
 ment, would also then be due to the 
 evangelist and not to Jesus. 
 
 This argument of criticism is an ex- 
 
 * See also the note above. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 17 
 
 tremely weighty one, which cannot be dis- 
 missed until full justice has been done 
 it, and this may well demand readjustment 
 and modification of accepted views, even 
 if they be retained as a whole. We shall 
 return to it later. 
 
 Pass now to a second consideration. It 
 is sufficient merely to attempt in imagina- 
 tion to realize by what means long dis- 
 courses of Jesus could be perpetuated 
 unwritten for at least a generation, to per- 
 ceive that we have no right to expect the 
 preservation of whole addresses or ser- 
 mons. Even were we to take the three 
 chapters of Matthew which correspond to 
 the thirty-three verses of Luke, as giving 
 us the great address just as delivered, the 
 whole of this longest sermon would occupy 
 in delivery only a few minutes of time, 
 whereas we know Jesus often taught for 
 hours. Parables could be remembered, 
 epigrammatic answers to interlocutors, 
 apophthegms, principles applied to the 
 solution of current questions of religion, 
 
18 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 patriotism, and duty. But even the mem- 
 ory of a trained disciple of the rabbis 
 refused to carry sermons and addresses, 
 and the supposed examples afforded by 
 the New Testament have repeatedly turned 
 out on closer scrutiny to be of the usual 
 type of reported addresses in secular his- 
 torians of that era, viz., compositions of 
 the author out of the best material at his 
 command, intended to represent, as well as 
 the material permitted, what the speaker 
 would have said. The evidence of this 
 lies in many cases in the circumstances of 
 the interview, which are often such as 
 to preclude other authority for the author's 
 report than hearsay and conjecture. So 
 the dialogue of Jesus with Pilate, Jn. 
 18:32-38, speech of Gamaliel to the San- 
 hedrin, Acts 5 : 34-40, letter of Lysias to 
 Felix, Acts 23 : 25-30, and the like. In 
 other cases additional evidence appears in 
 the language and style, as where the 
 Johannine discourses are indistinguishable 
 in style and character from the epistles of 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 19 
 
 John, or as in the speeches of Acts, which 
 are at least shaped by the author to his 
 purpose, and display his characteristic 
 diction. Even the sermon of Jesus in the 
 synagogue at Nazareth, wherewith our 
 third evangelist opens his account of the 
 public ministry, while made up of authentic 
 material,* is unmistakably adapted to the 
 purpose of the historian who relates the 
 Redeemer's rejection by his own people 
 and subsequent welcome by the Gentiles, 
 even as it had been foretold by the 
 prophets, rather than the purpose in Jesus' 
 mind when he addressed his fellow-towns- 
 
 * The login (" divine utterances ") of Jesus were placed 
 on a superhuman plane in even the earliest time (i Cor. 
 7: 10, 12, 25). Reverence for them was too great to 
 admit of the kind of composition employecf-elsewhere. 
 But composition by agglutination, i.e. the joining to- 
 gether of logia separately transmitted, is a demonstrable 
 phenomenon of the gospels and a constant practice of the 
 fathers, as in Clement of Rome, ad Cor. 13:2. An 
 instructive illustration of a saying (originally the answer 
 to a question) transformed by the evangelist into the 
 subject-matter of a sermon, is found in Mk. 1 : 7-8, dis- 
 placing as it does the real preaching of John, Mt. 3 : 7-10, 
 i2 = Lk. 3: 7-9, 17; cf. Jn. 1 : 19-25 and Lk. 3: 15. 
 
20 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 men. The constant reiteration of this 
 theme of the obduracy of Israel compelling 
 the heralds of the gospel to " turn to the 
 Gentiles " throughout the third gospel and 
 Acts shows that the quotation from Isaiah, 
 and subsequent justification of the preach- 
 ing of the gospel to the Gentiles by the 
 examples of Elijah and Elisha, in Lk. 
 4: 16-30, cannot be attributed to Jesus 
 under just this form and these circum- 
 stances, though they may well be authentic 
 utterances. This being, then, at least a 
 possible method of the evangelists, we 
 cannot rule out of court the view that the 
 Sermon on the Mount has received the 
 form of a connected discourse simply by 
 the aggregation of remembered sayings of 
 Jesus, in later times and for catechetic 
 purposes. We have, then, much to con- 
 cede to the objector under this second 
 head also. For (1) we have a priori no 
 right to expect connected reports of ser- 
 mons ; (2) those we appear to have are 
 certainly in many cases compositions out 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 21 
 
 of more or less authentic material ; (3) the 
 main course of criticism up to the present 
 has been rightly analytical rather than 
 synthetic, because the most approved 
 results go to show that the earliest pro- 
 cesses of gospel composition tended toward 
 aggregation rather than disintegration. 
 In other words, all we know by tradition, 
 as well as by scrutiny of the completed 
 work goes to show effort on the part of 
 primitive compilers of the Lord's sayings 
 to form connections, even where they did 
 not exist, rather than a disposition to break 
 up existing contexts and connections. This 
 of course is no more than we should ex- 
 pect, but it imposes upon us the task of 
 analysis in order to get at the original. 
 
 Thus appears a second weighty objec- 
 tion to the authenticity of the Sermon 
 on the Mount as a connected discourse. 
 And this, too, must be treated as care- 
 fully and as justly as the first. 
 
 Finally we have evidence — conclusive 
 unless we reject the explicit statements 
 
22 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 of Luke — that about one-fourth of the 
 Matthaean discourse consists of teachings 
 uttered on other occasions ; and this tes- 
 timony of Luke, as we shall see, is cor- 
 roborated by the internal evidence of 
 the teachings themselves, which agree 
 much better with the circumstances un- 
 der which Luke declares them to have 
 been uttered, than with the Matthaean 
 setting. Indeed, the removal of them 
 often restores the original discourse to 
 greater symmetry, beauty, and intelligi- 
 bility. 
 
 This third objection is fatal to any at- 
 tempt to vindicate the entire Matthaean 
 composition as a transcript, or even 
 synopsis of the actual address. The so- 
 called Sermon on the Mount certainly 
 contains, at least, a very considerable ele- 
 ment of agglutinated fragments. Con- 
 ceivably it might be wholly made up of 
 them. Actually, I am convinced that it 
 does not, but represents a real discourse 
 of Jesus substantially of the character 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 2} 
 
 represented by our first gospel, in spite 
 of all discounts necessary to be made on 
 the score of the critical objections above 
 noted. Not only so, but I believe it to 
 be possible to give strict critical demon- 
 stration of an underlying, connected dis- 
 course whose subject was the new Torah 
 of the righteousness of the kingdom of 
 God. And this discourse, if not directly 
 derived in this particular form from 
 Jesus himself, is at least decidedly older 
 than either our (| irs£ ) or third gospel, so 
 much older as to go back beyond all 
 reasonable doub.t to the time when many 
 still survived who remembered the actual 
 preaching of Jesus. 
 
 For let us first briefly review the objec- 
 tions, and see just how much and how 
 little is really implied, and afterward I 
 will state some of the reasons which lead 
 me to the conclusion stated. 
 
 The first objection confronts us with 
 an "if," which nothing but critical scru- 
 tiny of the material will determine. If 
 
24 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 the fundamental character of the Sermon 
 on the Mount is neo-legalistic, we must 
 regard it as a composition of the evan- 
 gelist whose modification of the Markan 
 incident of the rich young man so 
 significantly takes this direction. It is 
 the word " fundamental " which must 
 bear the stress. Neo-legalistic touches 
 here and there,* especially such as do 
 not appear in the Lucan version, may 
 easily be accounted for as supplied by 
 the evangelist without affecting the main 
 course of thought. Nay, more. If, as 
 may often be the case, the intrusive 
 character of these additions becomes 
 apparent from their disagreement with 
 the sense of the context, the argument 
 may be inverted. The very fact that 
 the evangelist deems it needful to intro- 
 duce modifying clauses and paragraphs 
 of the neo-legalistic type goes to show 
 that the material he thus alters was 
 
 * E.g. Mt. 5 : 1 6 Kaka. epya, 1 8- 1 9, 32 Trapftcrbs \6yov 
 iropvdas, 7: I2 b . 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 25 
 
 either anti-legalistic, or at least not legal- 
 istic enough to meet his views. Now 
 in the course of our review we shall 
 find repeatedly that it is not the funda- 
 mental but the overlying elements, modi- 
 fying clauses, appended qualifications, 
 which display the neo-legalistic tendency; 
 whereas the fundamental course of 
 thought in the discourse as a whole is 
 exactly parallel to the teaching of the 
 Markan incident of the rich young man: 
 righteousness is not a store of accumu- 
 lated merits, but self-surrender to the 
 inworking of the Spirit of the divine 
 goodness. This quasi-legalism, as we 
 have designated it, is not indeed the 
 same as Paulinism, but it rests upon the 
 same doctrine of faith as the one thing 
 needful. It involves that mysticism of 
 Jesus without which neither the Pauline 
 nor the Johannine teaching could have 
 ventured to call itself by his name. To 
 this first objection, therefore, we may 
 answer: A neo-legalistic. element is unde- 
 
26 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 niably present in the Matthaean Sermon 
 on the Mount ; but so far is this from 
 representing the main course of thought 
 that its conflict therewith rather tends 
 to prove an underlying discourse whose 
 character could not be fairly regarded 
 as more than quasi-legalistic. 
 
 But it is presented as a second objec- 
 tion that the actual teaching of Jesus 
 was in the form of " brief and concise 
 utterances " on the testimony of very 
 ancient tradition * as well as the ordinary 
 representation of the synoptic gospels ; 
 so that we have no right to expect the 
 report of extended discourses, but on the 
 contrary are taught by all experience 
 that the supposed extended discourses of 
 the New Testament are either free com- 
 positions of the historian, or formed by 
 agglutination. We are also directed to 
 the Pirke Aboth, or " Sayings of the 
 Jewish Fathers," a substantially contem- 
 
 * The words quoted are from Justin Martyr. First 
 Apology, xiv, ca. 155 A.D. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 27 
 
 porary record of teachings of the rabbis 
 of Jesus' time and earlier, as the closest 
 parallel to the earliest gospel writings. 
 These apophthegms and sententious say- 
 ings represent, we are told, not only the 
 form of the earliest records — the Oxy- 
 rhynchus fragment corroborates this view 
 ■ — but the form of the teaching of Jesus 
 itself. But at this point we must demur. 
 The example of the Pirke Aboth is 
 highly instructive as to the probable 
 nature of the first evangelic composition 
 of which we have record, the Hebrew 
 (Aramaic) Logia of Jesus by the Apostle 
 Matthew; but it suggests the wrong anal- 
 ogy for the principal public utterances 
 of Jesus. We should look rather to the 
 Old Testament prophets, and to John the 
 Baptist, their then living representative, 
 for types of that Teacher who stirred 
 the multitudes with amazement because 
 he spoke " with authority, and not as 
 the scribes." John the Baptist, Jesus, 
 and the Apostles were in their mode of 
 
28 T)ie Sermon on the Mount 
 
 utterance not scribes but "preachers" 
 and we have accordingly no word better 
 fitted than the word " sermon," used in 
 its noblest sense, to describe the kind 
 of discourse Jesus gave when he went 
 round about the cities and villages of 
 Galilee teaching, healing, and, on the 
 the Sabbaths, preacJiing in their syjia- 
 gognes. 
 
 Undoubtedly the great majority of the 
 recorded teachings of our gospels are of 
 the other type, the occasional pithy say- 
 ing, apophthegm, or wise and witty retort, 
 the parable and illustration, or remem- 
 bered fragment of consecutive discourse. 
 But to take rabbinic teaching, even at 
 its best, as the type mainly followed by 
 Jesus, is to ignore one of the fundamental 
 distinctions of the age ; or rather to choose 
 the very opposite of the true alternative. 
 
 The teaching in the synagogues of 
 Jesus' time was of two types, designated 
 respectively halachah and JiaggadaJi. The 
 former was authoritative and lesral. The 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 29 
 
 scribe, or lawyer, who gave it, simply ex- 
 pounded and applied the precepts of the 
 law.* Of such casuistry, precedent and 
 case-law, consists the great body of the 
 Talmud, and Jesus, who by courtesy was 
 addressed as " rabbi," was often appealed 
 to for decisions in this field ; whether to 
 entrap him, as in the incident of the de- 
 narius, and the law of divorce, or in good 
 
 * A modern critic of eminence depicts the great rabl>i 
 in the synagogue, sitting in meditative silence in the 
 midst of his awe-struck disciples. After long periods 
 of silence the great man raises his head. He will not 
 use the vulgar tongue of " the people of the land," but 
 whispers his weighty decision in the ear of his " minis- 
 ter " in the sacred Hebrew. And the targum man, or 
 interpreter (anglice dragoman), thereupon proclaims it 
 to the attentive congregation. As an illustration of 
 halachic teaching this is most serviceable and furnishes 
 an admirable commentary on the saying, " What ye have 
 heard in the ear proclaim upon the housetops." But as 
 an illustration of the public teaching of Jesus, it would 
 be absolutely misleading. Equally incredible in my 
 judgment is the view of certain leading critics that 
 either Jesus or the earliest compilers of his teachings 
 should have copied the rabbinic affectation of employ- 
 ing the Hebrew language, unintelligible as it was to the 
 masses. 
 
30 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 faith, as when asked, " Who is my • neigh- 
 bor '? " or "What is the chief command- 
 ment?" But Jesus never consents to enter 
 this field of halacJiah. It is one which he 
 turns over absolutely to the lawyers by 
 profession, " the scribes who sit in Moses' 
 seat." He declines to teach ethics or casu- 
 istry, save as involved in his simple mes- 
 sage of religion. He declines to refer to 
 authorities. In the language of his con- 
 temporaries his teaching was nothalachah, 
 but haggadah ; not law, but preaching; 
 and in the haggadic style, accordingly, 
 must we look for the rhetorical forms to 
 which those employed by Jesus are more 
 nearly allied. Edification was the one 
 supreme object of Jiaggadah, and its range 
 was as unlimited as its authority was un- 
 defined. Its very name denotes the " folk- 
 tale " or " story " ; its origin was in the 
 democratic synagogue, not in the aristo- 
 cratic schools of the temple. No pre- 
 cedent or authority needed to be cited, no 
 literary expedient of allegory, fiction, or 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 31 
 
 legend was excluded. Inevitably the syna- 
 gogue harangue on the Sabbath tended 
 toward this character, rather than its al- 
 ternative, most of all in unsophisticated 
 Galilee ; for who could listen for hours 
 on end to the dreary casuistry of the 
 lawyers ? And Jesus was not only a 
 preacher, but an impassioned, and, in the 
 loftiest sense of the word, a popular 
 preacher. Is it, then, so incredible that, 
 in addition to the mass of sententious 
 utterances, apophthegms, and answers re- 
 corded in our gospels, there should also 
 remain some traces of connected discourse 
 — of preaching? We may not, indeed, 
 expect more than the briefest fragments 
 of any such address ; but may there not 
 be enough to form some outline ? Must 
 all the evidences of logical and rhetorical 
 arrangement, displayed in such passages as 
 the eulogy of John the Baptist (Mt. n: 
 7-19), the discourses on the Sign of Jonah 
 (Lk. 11 : 27-32), and on the True Content 
 of Life (Lk. 12:1 3-3 1 ), be attributed to 
 
32 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 mere editors and collectors of sayings? 
 Criticism has, indeed, concerned itself up 
 to now for the most part with analysis, 
 and rightly so. It has won unquestion- 
 able results in disproof of certain at- 
 tempted syntheses of early gospel writers ; 
 in many instances our evangelists have 
 formed, or taken over, combinations of 
 sayings which demonstrably were not ut- 
 tered in this relation or connection. But 
 while the conscious and direct effort of 
 proto-evangelists was doubtless directed 
 toward combination, we have evidence no 
 less conclusive of an unconscious and 
 indirect tendency toward disintegration. 
 Their very effort to recombine is evidence 
 that they were aware of the fragmentary 
 character of their material. Often it gave 
 mere salient points retained by memory 
 from larger structures. Moreover, these 
 very attempts, when unsuccessful, will 
 have often produced still further disinte- 
 gration. Of this the Sermon on the 
 Mount itself will furnish many an exam- 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 33 
 
 pie. And this imposes upon us the task 
 of synthesis as imperatively as that of 
 analysis. Doubtless the task is precari- 
 ous. Doubtless analysis and reconstruc- 
 tion of the documentary sources should 
 precede attempts to restore the very utter- 
 ances themselves. But are not some steps 
 already possible that shall be both trust- 
 worthy and critical ? To this the answer 
 must be found in the attempt itself. 
 
 Finally, we had as a third objection to 
 the discovery of any authentic discourse 
 to which the name Sermon on the Mount 
 was justly applicable, the disagreement 
 of the two authorities who report it. In 
 Matthew the main thread of logical con- 
 nection, so far as traceable, is the contrast 
 of the righteousness of the Law with the 
 righteousness of the Kingdom. In Luke 
 two-thirds of this material does not ap- 
 pear at all, while two-thirds or more of 
 the remainder is related, in most cases, 
 with every evidence of correctness, as 
 uttered on other occasions. 
 
34 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 In weighing the effect of this objection 
 we have already conceded the evidence 
 of agglutination. A very considerable 
 element of the Matthsean Sermon on the 
 Mount must on the evidence of Luke be 
 admitted to result from mistaken synthesis 
 on the part of the compiler. But because 
 some of his syntheses are mistaken must 
 all be necessarily so ? Will the disagree- 
 ment of an independent witness disprove, 
 and the agreement not corroborate ? But 
 our final answer to this and all other ob- 
 jections can only be by actual comparison 
 and cross-examination of the two wit- 
 nesses. Then, if after all needful deduc- 
 tions and corrections of the one report by 
 the other have been made, the unassail- 
 ble remnant shall still appear not less, but 
 more, logically and rhetorically connected 
 than before ; if it be more than ever like 
 a literary unit of connected discourse, less 
 than ever like a mere agglomeration of 
 sayings, the very divergence and indepen- 
 dence of the witnesses will strengthen the 
 
Tl)e Sermon on the Mount 35 
 
 proof that this unity is not artificial, but 
 original ; that it goes far back into the 
 age of living first-hand tradition, if not 
 to the great Preacher himself. 
 
 So much as to the objections, which we 
 have endeavored to estimate at their true 
 value ; no more, no less. 
 
 I have now to present three reasons for 
 my conviction that Matthew, however in- 
 correct in the admission of many large 
 masses of discourse uttered on other occa- 
 sions, is in his general representation 
 correct. 
 
 There was a real sermon, a Sermon on 
 the Mount, a discourse of Jesus to his dis- 
 ciples, worthy to be called the New Torah 
 of the Kingdom of God ; because in it he 
 set forth, with that clear consistency of 
 thought and integrity of style so charac- 
 teristic of the parables, the relation of mo- 
 rality and religion in the coming kingdom, 
 to that of which the scribes and Phari- 
 sees were respectively the theoretical and 
 practical exponents. Thus the special 
 
36 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 rhetorical form in which the discourse 
 is cast, an antitype to the Law of Moses, 
 is not something created by our evan- 
 gelist, but rather, turned to account by 
 him ; for, when we inquire as to the real 
 doctrinal import, the neo-legalistic ten- 
 dency appears nowhere but in superficial 
 touches. The discourse as a whole, if 
 not positively anti-legalistic is at least 
 non-legalistic. 
 
 My first reason for justifying to this 
 extent the representation of our first evan- 
 gelist is chiefly negative. We must account 
 for the absence from the discourse in 
 Luke's version (Lk. 6:20-49) °f au " tnat 
 pertains to the contrast between the new 
 righteousness and the old. But to under- 
 stand this we have only to remember, first, 
 that Luke is almost certainly addressing 
 Gentiles, who had small interest in the 
 mere relation of the teaching of Jesus to 
 what "they of old time" had said, or the 
 righteousnesses esteemed by scribe and 
 Pharisee. His readers wanted simply the 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 37 
 
 positive content of Jesus' requirement.* 
 Second, we must remember the strong 
 anti-Judaism of this writer, as evinced in 
 Acts, which might lead him to neglect the 
 antithesis of Law and Gospel. Third, we 
 have only to compare his very cavalier 
 treatment of a kindred section of Mark, 
 whose gospel we know lay before him. 
 I mean the section on Jesus' conflict with 
 " the scribes who came down from Jeru- 
 salem " about ceremonial washings, the 
 traditions of the elders, and the distinc- 
 tions of clean and unclean meats (Mk. 7: 
 1-23), all of which Luke practically elimi- 
 nates. We see it then to have been the ac- 
 
 * Our third gospel is often spoken of as a Gentile gos- 
 pel, largely on the assumption that the tradition associ- 
 ating it with the name of the Gentile Luke is correct. 
 On this point we make no assumption (see Bacon, In- 
 trod, to N. T. Lit., pp. 211-229). On the contrary the 
 sections peculiar to Luke are more strongly Palestinian, 
 Petrine, and Jewish-Christian than any other element of 
 the New Testament. But excisions are made {e.g. of 
 Mk. 7 : 24-30), and misunderstandings occur (Lk. 
 11:39; cf. Mt. 23:25 and 2:22 (?)), which suggest 
 rather a Gentile destination and Gentile compiler. 
 
38 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 tual practice of this evangelist to strike out 
 matter which, as he looked at it, only con- 
 cerned Jesus' relation to Jewish law.* Thus 
 Luke's omissions are not unaccountable. 
 
 But there is more. Evidence exists in 
 Luke's own report that this part of the 
 Sermon on the Mount really was once 
 present in the source which he employed. 
 Turn to Lk. 6 : 27, and ask yourselves 
 why it should begin, "But I say unto 
 you," f without something before it corre- 
 sponding to Matthew's antithesis of what 
 "they of old time " had said. More signifi- 
 cant still, how comes it that the striking 
 thought and phrase on ground of which 
 
 * Compare also the reduced dimensions of the Woes 
 against scribes and Pharisees in Mt. 23, as given in 
 Lk. n, and of the Warning against their teaching 
 Mt. 16: 5-12 = Mk. 8: 13-21, in Lk. 12: 1. 
 
 t The Greek, 'AXXa vfuv Ktyw rots aKovovcriv, " But to 
 you that hear, I say," places the contrast otherwise than 
 the English would suggest. But the distinction between 
 the absent rich, full, well spoken of, and present poor, 
 empty, persecuted, impresses one as forced upon the con- 
 nection rather than original. It was needless to specify 
 that the speaker addressed those present, not the absent. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 39 
 
 the acts of piety, almsgiving, prayer, fast- 
 ing done from ostentation are denied any 
 credit with God — cnre^ovac rov yuadov 
 avTwv, " they have in full their reward " * 
 — is the same thought and phrase on 
 ground of which they that are "rich and 
 increased in goods, and have need of 
 nothing" are denied a share in the king- 
 dom, if both are not from the same mind ? 
 Yet one is the Matthaean refrain of the 
 antitheses on the true worship (Mt. 6 : 
 1-18), which do not appear in Luke ; and 
 the other is the Lukan burden of the 
 Woes (Lk. 6 : 24-26), which do not ap- 
 pear in Matthew. Both sections must 
 be authentic, or the characteristic thought 
 and expression would not appear on both 
 sides ; for Matthew, in the form that we 
 have it, was almost certainly unknown to 
 
 * The recently discovered contemporary papyri from 
 the Fayoum admirably illustrate the peculiar use of this 
 term, dWx°w, translated by the Revisers, " they have 
 received." It is the technical term by which one receipts 
 in full for a loan or bill. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, 
 p. 229. 
 
40 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 Luke.* We are compelled to assume a 
 common source which included elements 
 omitted first by Matthew, then by Luke. 
 
 My second reason for indorsing the 
 title " The New Torah " may sound some- 
 what a priori in character, until you know 
 the facts. But let me state it first. I 
 do not believe that the Reformer, who, 
 after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, 
 began his programme of openly Messianic 
 activity t with the cleansing of the temple, 
 accompanied as it was by the great say- 
 ing about rebuilding it in three days, can 
 have failed at a much earlier period to 
 make full, clear, and formal definition to 
 at least the inner circle of his disciples 
 of his relation to that institution which 
 
 * See my Introduction to the New Testament, 1900, 
 p. 180. 
 
 t That is, the final Passover week. The ministry 
 previously had not been openly Messianic (Mt. 16 : 17, 
 20). Could we suppose with the fourth evangelist that 
 Jesus' Messianic claims were openly declared from the 
 beginning, his placing of the cleansing of the temple 
 might be admissible. But this is impossible. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 41 
 
 to them was even greater, and far more 
 closely related to their religious life ; I 
 mean the Law. There were certain 
 great, stereotyped Messianic expectations 
 of Jesus' time, only partly justified by 
 Scripture, it is true, and in other respects 
 ill-befitting the kingdom he proclaimed, 
 to which Jesus yet clearly adapted him- 
 self and gave fulfilment, albeit a fulfilment 
 so much more spiritual than the current 
 idea as to meet but small acceptance. 
 Such was the very conception of Christ- 
 hood itself. It is by no means Jesus' 
 own term for the part he felt called on to 
 play. He uses the term but three times 
 in all, and then as it were under protest.* 
 He is the Christ, indeed, but not what 
 men mean by the term. He gives it a 
 new sense. He knows himself the Son 
 of God, but that, too, not in the accepted 
 sense. He calls himself the Son of Man. 
 
 * For the real significance of Jesus' reply to the 
 adjuration of the high priest, "Art thou the Christ ?" — 
 <xii fl-rras, see Thayer, vcijourn. of Bid/. Lit., 1894. 
 
42 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 So also with the current ideas of the 
 redemption to be brought in. Perhaps 
 the most widespread figure by which it 
 was expressed was the conception of the 
 great Messianic feast. This also Jesus 
 spiritualizes (Mt. 4:4), or turns into a 
 feeding of the world with his doctrine 
 (Jn. 6 : 26-58 ; cf. Mt. 16 : 12). Jesus, we 
 see, was too wise to begin his reformatory 
 career with open claims of a Messianic 
 office whose nature all would misunder- 
 stand. But it is impossible to suppose 
 that he began it without a clear notion 
 of what he himself meant by it, or without 
 a full realization that it implied a recast- 
 ing of the most fundamental institutions 
 of Israel ; in particular, a new conception 
 of the Kingdom of God, or reign of 
 Messiah. Common sense thus required 
 him to begin by teaching in what new 
 sense these great ideas of the popular 
 hope and faith must be understood. Now, 
 if you have read something of the litera- 
 ture which is just beginning to reveal 
 
Tlie Sermon on the Mount 43 
 
 to us the religious conceptions of Jesus' 
 time from Jewish sources, I mean such 
 books as Weber's Lehre dcs Talmud and 
 R. H. Charles's EscJiatology, you will find 
 that there were two expectations of Mes- 
 siah profoundly established in the pop- 
 ular faith, having genuine root in the 
 great prophecies of the past, and at the 
 same time of such a nature that they 
 could not but appeal to Jesus as at least 
 in some sense justifiable. It will be a 
 very helpful illustration of what we may 
 term the pedagogic method of Jesus, to 
 observe how he dealt with these two 
 current particulars of the general Mes- 
 sianic hope ; both of them of larger and 
 deeper significance than that of the Mes- 
 sianic feast already referred to. One of 
 these two maintained that foremost among 
 the achievements of Messiah would be the 
 rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. 
 Weber, in § 83 of his book, cites a multi- 
 tude of passages from the Talmud illus- 
 trative of the expectation. First, such 
 
44 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 as relate to the city, based, of course, on 
 Isaiah and Ezekiel, and constantly recall- 
 ing to us the picture of the New Jerusa- 
 lem of Revelation ; and, second, an equal 
 number regarding the similar renovation 
 of the temple, which is, of course, to 
 every Jew, the glory of Jerusalem. The 
 targum on Is. 53:5 already declares that 
 Messiah will rebuild the sanctuary, and 
 later writings enlarge upon its surpassing 
 glory. The pre-Christian book of Enoch 
 similarly enlarges on this Messianic re- 
 newal of the temple. Not improbably 
 the disciples may have had it in mind 
 when they pointed with pride to the 
 goodly stones of the temple of Herod. 
 And Jesus, as we have seen, did not turn 
 a deaf ear to this Messianic expectation. 
 The great symbolic act of purifying the 
 temple defined his position with regard 
 to it, but not without an accompanying 
 statement in explicit terms. He predicted 
 the overthrow of that " temple built with 
 hands," but promised that " in three 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 45 
 
 days " he would replace it by a spiritual 
 temple, world-wide, eternal, in which true 
 worshippers should render spiritual sacri- 
 fice to the Father of all. Thereupon, 
 down all the succession of Christian 
 preachers and writers, Stephen, Paul, 
 Peter, John, and long after among the 
 fathers, reechoes the great saying of 
 Jesus on the living " temple not built 
 with hands " of the Messianic kingdom. 
 Similar is his treatment of the other 
 expectation, regarding a still more funda- 
 mental institution of Israel. No less ex- 
 plicit and positive than the expectation 
 regarding the temple was the popular 
 faith of Jesus' day that Messiah when he 
 came would reconstruct the Law. The 
 very scribes, untiring as they were in their 
 exaggerated laudation of its perfections, 
 were abundantly conscious of the need 
 of interpretation. This need they some- 
 times expressed by declaring with R. Chija 
 of Is. 53 : 5 (the same passage applied to 
 the rebuilding of the temple): "This re- 
 
46 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 lates to the days of Messiah. A great 
 thing will then occur. The To rah will be 
 as if new ; it will be renewed for Israel." 
 Sometimes they spoke as if the transfor- 
 mation were to be still more radical: "The 
 Holy One, blessed be he, will sit and teach 
 \darasfi\ a new Torah, which he will give 
 through Messiah." But the expression 
 darash, the technical term for exposition,* 
 shows that what is really predicted is only 
 such illuminative interpretation, that the 
 Law would seem new, transfigured, glori- 
 fied. In this sense the Christ was called 
 in Jewish Christian circles the " true 
 Prophet," the second Moses. f Even in 
 the days of Judas Maccabseus they laid up 
 for his coming the stones of the altar de- 
 filed by Antiochus Epiphanes, not know- 
 ing what to do with them ; and, as we 
 
 * Literally " tread out," a figure derived from the 
 process of threshing by the feet of oxen. Paul (i Cor. 
 9 : 9) assumes that Dt. 25 : 4 must apply principally to the 
 human darshan (i.e. " treader out") rather than to 
 literal oxen, on grounds similar to Lk. 12:24. 
 
 t So in Clem. Homilies and Recognitions, passim. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 47 
 
 know, the Samaritan woman herself be- 
 lieves that the end of controversy as 
 between Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim 
 will be " when Messiah cometh, who will 
 tell us all things." Rightly or wrongly 
 the shepherdless sheep of Israel looked 
 forward with longing to Messiah as the 
 great Interpreter of Scripture, the " Re- 
 newer of the Law " — so they called him * 
 — and such an expectation we have a 
 right to assume Jesus would not disap- 
 point. 
 
 It is true that this is a priori reasoning, 
 by which it would be hopeless, in the 
 absence of actual reported utterances, to 
 establish more than the possibility that 
 Jesus viigJit, even at a very early period 
 of his ministry in Galilee, have drawn a 
 detailed comparison between the present 
 ToraJi and the ToraJi of the age to come. 
 But it is precisely this which we are called 
 upon to prove. The reported utterance 
 exists. The gospels report a discourse 
 
 * See the passage cited below from Test, of Levi, 16. 
 
48 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 of this type. But the possibility of such 
 a discourse is denied, on the ground that 
 Jesus could not, at so early a period in his 
 ministry, have assumed to legislate as Mes- 
 siah, and the existence of the report is ex- 
 plained as due to the conviction of the 
 evangelists that Jesus was the Messiah, 
 their mistaken inference that therefore he 
 must from the outset have promulgated the 
 Messianic Torah, and their ability to put to- 
 gether from the occasional sayings of Jesus 
 an agglomeration sufficient to bear the title. 
 Now this objection is removed as soon 
 as we reflect that the utterance of the 
 supposed discourse is a very different 
 matter, as regards the inference to be 
 drawn as to the speaker's personality, 
 from such an act as the purifying of the 
 temple, which instantly called forth the 
 demand, " By what authority doest thou 
 these things?" It indeed the discourse 
 were rightly described as the promulga- 
 tion of the Messianic Law, if the speaker 
 really placed himself in the attitude, not 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 49 
 
 of declaring the nature of the law that will 
 prevail in the kingdom of heaven, but of 
 personally legislating to this effect, then 
 the objection would hold. As it is, there 
 is nothing belonging to the genuine sub- 
 stance of the reported discourse which 
 goes beyond the general nature of Jesus' 
 teaching in Galilee as reported by all the 
 Synoptists. It is indeed a teaching of 
 " authority " unlike that of the scribes, 
 and so well calculated to rouse the 
 amazement of the hearers; but not be- 
 yond that of the preaching of the Baptist. 
 It is the authority of " a mighty prophet," 
 announcing now not merely that " the 
 kingdom of heaven is at hand," but an- 
 nouncing also its nature, and the character 
 of its laws and institutions. Yet no one 
 need infer more as to the nature of the 
 speaker than that he is "Jeremias or one 
 of the prophets," or perhaps " Elias that 
 was for to come," or even "John the Bap- 
 tist risen from the dead." It is simply 
 in line with the general message of " the 
 
50 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 prophet of Nazareth," how that, " the time 
 is fulfilled and the kingdom at hand," and 
 with the parables by which he defined its 
 character, that to those who listened to his 
 authoritative summons to "believe the glad 
 tidings " and order their lives accordingly, 
 he should also set forth the nature and 
 principles of its Law. Understand the 
 Sermon on the Mount as we have shown 
 and will show that it must be understood, 
 as the utterance not of a legislator but a 
 prophet of the kingdom, and the objection 
 disappears. Add now the consideration 
 adduced that expectations of his hearers 
 which must needs have appealed to Jesus 
 as legitimate, loudly called for an immedi- 
 ate declaration on this point of the relation 
 of the New Torah to that of which Scribe 
 and Pharisee were the exponents, and the 
 argument is reversed. We should rather 
 be greatly surprised if our authorities did 
 not report utterances of the Master, clearly 
 genuine, in which his followers' expectation 
 on this point was met. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 51 
 
 But if met, was it in so obscure a way, 
 that only the later speculation of the 
 church, turning back and reflecting on 
 his teachings, would at last realize that 
 its " new law " was already given ? Or 
 did he meet it as clearly and manifestly 
 as that regarding the temple, setting in 
 contrast the standard of righteousness 
 which must prevail in the kingdom he 
 declared " at hand " with the standards 
 of those who sat in Moses' seat ? Cer- 
 tainly the early church thought its Master 
 had proclaimed a new Torah. We have 
 not only James with his " royal law," his 
 " law of liberty " proclaimed by Christ, 
 not only Barnabas, with his opposition 
 of " the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 which is without the yoke of constraint " 
 to the Law of Moses ; not only the nova 
 lex of the catholic fathers, but writings 
 of the primitive Jewish church like the 
 Testament of Levi, which lay hold on the 
 very language of scribal expectation, 
 placing in the mouth of the patriarch 
 
52 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 the prediction " The man who reneweth 
 the law in the power of the Highest ye 
 will call a deceiver, and at last will slay 
 him." 
 
 On this question, whether, and to what 
 extent the tradition of the church is justified, 
 nothing will enlighten us save a detailed 
 scrutiny of the reported discourse itself, 
 as its own internal sequence of thought 
 reveals its purpose. And we must distin- 
 guish here between the internal evidence 
 and the view of the reporter ; for the evan- 
 gelist, as some argue to whom we have al- 
 ready referred, might have been led by his 
 innate habit of thought to cast his great 
 initial discourse of Jesus in this form. So 
 far as possible, then, we must get back of 
 all editorial work. We must put together 
 all we can learn from the three synoptic 
 sources regarding the occasion and con- 
 tent, and draw from all sources our con- 
 clusion on the question : What was the 
 Sermon on the Mount in its own inherent 
 literary structure and didactic purpose ? 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 53 
 
 But to answer this question is not only 
 to decide whether or not there was a dis- 
 course of approximately the character we 
 have been accustomed to believe ; it is at 
 the same time to interpret. We shall be 
 getting at one of the most important, if 
 not the most important, of Jesus' public 
 utterances ; and in proportion to its impor- 
 tance, and our success in getting at his 
 point of view, his own words and thought, 
 we shall also be achieving our supreme 
 purpose of knowing this Son of Man, not 
 by what we are told about him, but because 
 we have heard him ourselves. 
 
 I crave your patience with many pre- 
 liminaries. There remains still, after the 
 formulation of our problem, a word as to 
 method. For the method, after all, is 
 more than the results of its application in 
 any particular instance. And I must not 
 only define, but possibly even defend ; 
 for that which I propose to apply — to 
 some extent have already applied — is to 
 many an object of profound distrust and 
 
54 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 suspicion. It is the method of the higher 
 criticism. 
 
 It is a pity that any method of Bible 
 study — a process for getting at the real 
 significance of Scripture — should be an 
 object of suspicion to godly people. 
 However, novelty, especially in matters of 
 religion, cannot expect to pass unchal- 
 lenged. Yet ask yourselves this ques- 
 tion : What interest can a man possibly 
 take in investigating the origins of the 
 biblical writings who has no interest in 
 the writings themselves ? If scholars 
 whose standing and influence, if not their 
 very livelihood, depend on the continued 
 interest and respect accorded to the writ- 
 ings of the Canon, to say nothing of the 
 personal enthusiasm they manifest, are 
 willing to devote a lifetime to the explo- 
 ration of the obscure problems of the 
 growth of this literature, is it not reason- 
 able to suppose that they do so as a rule 
 in the conviction that the real value of the 
 Bible will thereby be enhanced ? Is it 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 55 
 
 probable that they are all trying, in meta- 
 phorical phrase, to saw off the branch they 
 hang to ? So much as to motive. I leave 
 the witness of the many who declare this 
 method to have been an unveiling of the 
 Scriptures to them to speak for the results. 
 
 As to definition. The higher criticism 
 is the complement of the lower, or textual, 
 which deals with the transmission and dis- 
 semination of the sacred text, after it left 
 the hand which gave it its ultimate form 
 as a literary product. The textual critic 
 asks : " What was originally written ? " 
 The higher critic asks : How came it to 
 be written ? When ? why ? and by whom ? 
 
 Like every product of human effort, 
 these writings had a history of their forma- 
 tion as well as of their distribution. To 
 stop arbitrarily at the point where the 
 author gave his work to the public, is as 
 though one should leave off with botany 
 at the surface of the ground, and declare 
 the root and seed life of the plant an in- 
 scrutable mystery. Still more absurd if 
 
56 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 this author employed the work of prede- 
 cessors in the field, as Luke for one has 
 done, on the evidence of his own report 
 (Lk. I : i). Back of the work of historian, 
 compiler, letter-writer, editor, with his pen, 
 lies his work as an accumulator of materi- 
 als, oral or written. Other equally im- 
 portant factors are his own personality, 
 purpose, mental history and propensity, 
 his environment, and the occasion of his 
 writing, the effect of the thought of others 
 on his own, whether as antagonist or per- 
 haps as correspondents.* Knowledge of all 
 this is as indispensable to an understand- 
 ing of the true significance of writings, as 
 knowledge of what happens under the soil 
 to an understanding of plants ; and from 
 its relation to textual study the method is 
 called the higher {i.e. remoter, antecedent) 
 criticism. 
 
 But it is said knowledge on these sub- 
 jects is impossible, and, moreover, the 
 
 * As the Corinthians, to whose letter (i Cor. 7:1) 
 Paul is replying in our First Corinthians. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 57 
 
 processes employed and results announced 
 are very obnoxious to devout conviction. 
 As to the possibility or impossibility of 
 ascertaining something here, all we need 
 say is, that is just the question to be deter- 
 mined ; the process and evidence are pub- 
 lic ; if results seem meagre or ill-supported, 
 let them go for what they are worth. They 
 do not stand on authority, but on their 
 reasonableness. Whoever finds them 
 worthless or insecure, has his Bible as it 
 was before to return to. 
 
 As to the dislike of them, it is the story 
 of textual criticism over again. The Hel- 
 vetic Confession formulated a doctrine 
 of sacred Scripture for the Calvinistic 
 churches which implied that we possess an 
 absolutely authentic Greek and Hebrew 
 text. For a century the effort was made 
 to ignore the variations of the manuscripts 
 from the form which had come, almost by 
 accident, into the position of a standard. 
 Beza's great manuscript, antedating by five 
 centuries that from which the so-called 
 
58 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 "received text" had been taken, was prac- 
 tically suppressed. The Vaticanus, centu- 
 ries older still, was jealously guarded from 
 publication down to our own day. The 
 pointing out by scholars of variations, as 
 that the oldest manuscripts do not contain 
 the last twelve verses of Mark, or the story 
 of the woman taken in adultery, was bit- 
 terly resented. Yet who to-day does not 
 know and rejoice in that very variation, by 
 which, through comparison, we come at a 
 form of text antecedent in many cases to 
 that of any known manuscript ? 
 
 The history of the higher criticism is 
 exactly analogous. Here the facts to be 
 ascertained are, as we saw, not of the 
 transmission, but of the formation of the 
 writing, and we are not often so fortu- 
 nately situated as in the gospels, where we 
 have more than one witness to summon. 
 But the Sermon on the Mount comes to us 
 through two widely variant reports of 
 equal authority. What shall we do in this 
 case ? Ignore the differences, deny them, 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 59 
 
 vilify the men who call attention to them, 
 as has been done ? Shall we, as is far 
 more common, do our utmost to shut our 
 eyes to them, gloss them over, " harmo- 
 nize " them, as the expression is ? Or shall 
 we be willing to learn from God's word as 
 it is, rather than as it would be convenient 
 for our theories of inspiration to have it ? 
 I will assume, for my hearers at least, that 
 they mean to study the Bible with eyes as 
 well as ears wide open, unafraid of what it 
 shall teach them, though every man-made 
 theory of inspiration be overthrown, back 
 to the Nicene Creed, with its single declara- 
 tion of faith in the Holy Spirit, "who 
 spake by the prophets." 
 
 Finally, a word as to the scientific prin- 
 ciples on which this method of the higher 
 criticism is based. I have said we should 
 welcome the divergences of our parallel 
 reports for what can be learned from them, 
 inasmuch as we are not in the least alarmed 
 for fear any of our evangelists will be 
 caught in a falsehood. We believe, in 
 
60 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 fact, that as plain, high-minded, but in- 
 tensely interested men, they tell the story 
 as they understand it, and with their own 
 selection and emphasis, for their own pur- 
 pose ; to all of which they have a perfect 
 right. Now, this is gospel criticism. The 
 process of research is simply what lawyers 
 call friendly cross-examination. The law- 
 yer cross-questions his own witnesses be- 
 fore the jury. They very likely do not 
 know what he is getting at. But by skil- 
 ful questioning he manages to draw from 
 mutually independent sources — and the 
 more independent and reciprocally diver- 
 gent the better, so long as the jury see that 
 they are honest men, each telling the story 
 from his own point of view — a conception 
 of what transpired, that will be identical 
 with the account of no single one of them, 
 and yet better adapted to the jury's com- 
 prehension, and nearer the facts, than any. 
 This, I say, is the method of the higher 
 criticism. It is true that there may be un- 
 friendly cross-examination, whose object is 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 61 
 
 to make an honest witness appear dishon- 
 est, and to obscure rather than elucidate 
 the truth ; but this method is as hateful to 
 the true critic as to the devout believer, 
 because it is unscientific. The " special 
 pleader" has no more right in the profes- 
 sor's chair than on the judge's bench. 
 
 But comparison of divergent reports is 
 not all, of course ; for as you have already 
 reflected, there are portions even of the 
 synoptic writings, like the Book of Acts, 
 where, except in the portions paralleled 
 by the Pauline Epistles, we have practi- 
 cally but one witness. What then ? Again, 
 ask the lawyer. He does not refrain from 
 friendly cross-examination because he has 
 but one witness. He knows that human 
 testimony invariably consists partly of 
 observation, partly of inference. Let 
 the witness tell his story without inter- 
 ruption in his own way. The more inter- 
 est he has in the impression his narrative 
 is to make, the stronger will be the em- 
 phasis he places on what impresses him, 
 
62 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 the larger also the element of inference, 
 which in all testimony stands in variable 
 proportion to observed fact. And much 
 of this inference will be honestly stated 
 as fact. But the lawyer knows there may 
 be a different conception of the facts and 
 their bearing. Suppose now, the testi- 
 mony has been taken by deposition. The 
 witness is absent or dead ; there is only 
 his affidavit. Are we no longer able to 
 place a check upon it? Must the disas- 
 trous rule be applied : Falsus in uno, 
 falsus in omnibus ? Far from it. Surely 
 there is such a thing as consistency or 
 inconsistency with oneself, and with the 
 constant unities of place and time. If you 
 are a lawyer using an affidavit, or a his- 
 torical critic dealing with the one authority 
 on whom later writers depend, you will 
 certainly sometime be obliged to apply 
 this principle of self-consistency. It is 
 possible to say sometimes, even when we 
 have but a single witness, and to say rea- 
 sonably, if the right precautions of self- 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 63 
 
 distrust and familiarization with the cir- 
 cumstances are taken, the witness in 
 this particular was mistaken. It is not 
 reasonable to say in advance of the experi- 
 ment, Those whom God has made his wit- 
 nesses will be excepted from the limita- 
 tions of all others. Hence, even where 
 we have but a single authority, there is 
 still occasion for historical criticism. For- 
 tunately the cases are rare, in the Sermon 
 on the Mount, where we are reduced to 
 the testimony of a single witness, still 
 more rare in which sayings do not at once 
 vindicate themselves when restored to a 
 more suitable context, while sayings ir- 
 reconcilable with Jesus' well-established 
 teachings are here at least practically non- 
 existent. 
 
 It may be said, indeed, This method 
 deals only with the human element of 
 the Bible ; it does not touch the ultimate 
 mystery of the coming of divine truth into 
 human minds. And this is exactly so. 
 It does not invade the field of metaphysics 
 
64 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 or doctrinal theology. But what is it to 
 study the Bible ? Is it to stand in motion- 
 less awe contemplating the inscrutable ? 
 Or is it to learn more and more of the 
 invisible by that to which the methods of 
 science can be applied ? 
 
 By this time you will surely agree that 
 I have not rashly precipitated you unpre- 
 pared and unwarned into methods of Bible 
 study which some declare untried and 
 dangerous. The method is neither new 
 nor irrational, though prejudice has seemed 
 to demand this brief digression. Let us, 
 then, take up the special problem, asking 
 ourselves, on the basis of all the testimony, 
 logically compared and sifted, What was 
 the discourse, if any, in its fundamental 
 nature and purport, which underlies our 
 so-called Sermon on the Mount ? 
 
 We begin with what is perhaps a more 
 important question than it seems, the occa- 
 sion and circumstances, and the persons 
 addressed. On this point we have appar- 
 ently three witnesses, though really by 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 65 
 
 derivation the three are one. Compare 
 in any gospel harmony the description in 
 Matthew and Luke of the assembled mul- 
 titudes with that of Mk. 3 : 7-14, and you 
 will see that with minor changes they are 
 word for word the same.* Moreover, it 
 is quite clear that Matthew has here sim- 
 ply borrowed from Mark ; f for, whereas 
 in Mark there is a manifest reason for the 
 assemblage, even from Perasa, Idumea, and 
 Phoenicia, since Jesus' fame as a healer 
 has had time to spread; in Matthew the 
 assemblage is quite unaccountable, for 
 here the mighty works of Jesus are as 
 yet in the future, save for the sweeping 
 generalization of 4:23. Even "his disci- 
 ples," although addressed according to 5 : 1, 
 were not called until long after. 
 
 Luke (6:12-19) has made similar use 
 of Mark, his predecessor in the field, 
 though he has not committed the anachro- 
 nisms of Matthew. He even improves a 
 
 * See Appendix A (i). The Historical Setting, p. 121. 
 t Practically all of Mark is taken up in Matthew. 
 
 F 
 
66 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 little on the order of Mark, putting first 
 Jesus' retirement to " the mountain " and 
 choosing of the twelve ; then, " he came 
 down with them and stood on a plain;" 
 then he describes in Mark's language the 
 vast multitude assembled there, who form 
 the background of the audience.* 
 
 But this too is a misunderstanding. 
 Has Jesus an appointment with the vast 
 multitudes ? How then can he and they 
 so conveniently meet on the plain, when 
 he has been all night on the mountain ? 
 Doubtless the " plain " was the real gather- 
 ing place of the multitude, as Mark and 
 Luke relate ; for " the mountain " (mean- 
 ing the highland country back from the 
 populous plain by the lake) is Jesus' regu- 
 lar place of retirement from the pressure 
 of the crowds from the cities. Luke prob- 
 ably alters the situation from " mountain " 
 to " plain " for this reason. But what 
 both Matthew and Luke have failed to 
 observe, in borrowing Mark's description 
 
 * Appendix A (i), p. 121. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 67 
 
 of the crowd, is that in Mark the situation 
 is chosen for a reason just the opposite 
 of that which appeals to them. Jesus in 
 Mark's account is not seeking, but avoid- 
 ing, the multitude. They had come to- 
 gether on the lake-shore in overwhelming 
 numbers, attracted by the fame of Jesus' 
 miracles of healing. But instead of allow- 
 ing them to throng him and frustrate his 
 real mission by importunities for physical 
 help, Jesus retired to the mountain, elud- 
 ing the throng, and calling to him only 
 those " whom he himself would," of whom 
 " he appointed twelve that they might be 
 with him, and that he might send them 
 forth to preach." The wisdom of this 
 course is obvious. Now it is at this point 
 that Matthew and Luke both introduce 
 the Sermon on the Mount ; rightly, so far 
 as occasion is concerned, wrongly, so far as 
 regards the audience addressed. For the 
 very opening words show that it is really 
 addressed, not to the motley crowd, but to 
 an inner circle of Jesus' followers, who are 
 
68 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 to be subjects of the kingdom, and through 
 whom the importunate masses are to be 
 reached. But the later evangelists, Mat- 
 thew and Luke, cannot bear to think that 
 that great multitude below formed no part 
 of the audience ; so Matthew makes Jesus 
 take them with him up into the mount, 
 and Luke makes him and the disciples 
 come down again to them into the plain. 
 But the limited character of the circle 
 really addressed, judging by the implica- 
 tions of the discourse itself, forms, as you 
 cannot fail to see, a factor of no small 
 importance for our understanding of it. 
 
 The occasion settled, we have next to 
 consider the great contrasts in represen- 
 tation of its content between Luke and 
 Matthew. And first of all the most ex- 
 tensive ; the masses of discourse which 
 form part of the Sermon in Matthew, 
 but in Luke are given as uttered on 
 other occasions. We may take two ex- 
 amples. First is the long discourse on 
 earthly and heavenly riches, Mt. 6 : 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 69 
 
 19-34, whose connection with the pre- 
 ceding section on the true worship seems 
 to be merely the refrain, " Thy Father 
 which seeth in secret shall recompense 
 thee." * 
 
 In Lk. 12 : 13-34 this same discourse on 
 earthly versus heavenly riches is given, 
 but in a larger connection, f It follows 
 on a parable of the rich fool, who knew 
 no better wherein life consisteth than 
 when he had increased in wealth to pull 
 down his barns and build greater, and 
 bid his soul enjoy herself. The contrast 
 of the ravens that have " neither store- 
 house nor barn," yet are fed by God, 
 and of the lilies clothed by Him, is so 
 inimitably apposite that we may be sure 
 this Lucan connection is correct. In fact 
 we may test our synthesis by a compari- 
 son of the two parts which in Luke 
 alone appear united. Matthew taken by 
 itself has nothing to explain the philo- 
 
 * See Appendix A (8), p. 149. 
 t See Appendix C, p. 186. 
 
70 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 sophical turn of the warning against 
 material anxiety in the words, " Is not 
 the life more than the food ? " (Mt. 6:35). 
 But in Luke the very question here an- 
 swered, the question wherein a mans life 
 really does consist, whether in provision 
 of food and clothing, or something else, 
 is the question raised at the outset 
 (Lk. -12 : 15). Moreover, it is highly 
 probable that the model for the rich 
 man who seeks only pleasure as the 
 highest good is no other than the Solo- 
 mon of Ecclesiastes,* a book never 
 employed with approval in the New 
 Testament ; and if so, how significant 
 the comparison, " For even Solomon in 
 all his glory was not arrayed like one of 
 these ! " 
 
 But what led Jesus to this discourse 
 on earthly versus heavenly riches ? Luke 
 is explicit. As he was teaching, a man 
 in the crowd appealed to him for a 
 service often rendered by the synagogue 
 
 * Compare Eccl. 1 : 12, 16 ; 2 : i — 1 7. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 71 
 
 rabbi,* " Master, bid my brother divide the 
 inheritance with me." Instead of acced- 
 ing, Jesus refused to be made a judge 
 and divider, and related the parable 
 referred to as a warning against the 
 spirit of covetousness, to show how a 
 man should, and how he should not, 
 " take thought for his life." 
 
 It is simply inconceivable that Luke 
 should have invented this admirable his- 
 torical setting and context. So charac- 
 teristic a scene can be nothing else but 
 the true occasion of the discourse ; the 
 setting created for it by Matthew in the 
 Sermon on the Mount is the reverse of 
 felicitous.f and can only be accounted 
 
 * Synagogue was town-meeting, and rabbi was lawyer. 
 It was natural that arbitration should be one of the con- 
 stant and most useful functions of the office. Paul's 
 rebuke of the church in Corinth for resorting to heathen 
 courts, I Cor. 6: 1-7, gains in force and intelligibility from 
 knowledge of the synagogue practice. Jesus' declination 
 of the office of arbitrator is an instance in point of the 
 distinction we have already drawn (p. 29) between his 
 method of teaching and that of the scribes. 
 
 t See Appendix A (8), p. 148. 
 
72 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 for as an attempt at synthesis (on the 
 theme of "recompense," Mt. 6: 1 8) which 
 has resulted in worse disintegration.* 
 
 Or take again the Lord's prayer. It 
 is attached in Mt. 6 : 7-15 to the second 
 antithesis illustrating the true acts of 
 worship. The thrice given refrain, " and 
 thy Father which seeth in secret shall 
 recompense thee," concludes the illustra- 
 tion from prayer in v. 6. What fol- 
 lows is in the nature of appended login 
 on prayer. The saying of vv. 14-15 is 
 given again by Matthew himself in its 
 true connection in 18:21-35, and is a 
 parallel to Mk. n : 25. The Lord's 
 prayer, in simpler form, without the 
 explanatory clauses of Matthew, is given 
 by Luke as part of a great discourse on 
 prayer including, besides this, the com- 
 
 * The hope of better results from modern than 
 from early synthesis lies in the fact that the modern 
 motive is simply historical and critical, whereas the 
 ancient was as a rule simply practical, either purely 
 mnemonic {e.g. Mk. 9 : 33-50) or in the direct inter- 
 est of edification. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 7} 
 
 parison of God's giving to that of earthly- 
 fathers in Mt. 7 : 7-1 1 (" Ask and it shall 
 be given you," etc.).* But neither of 
 these formed part of the Sermon on the 
 Mount according to Luke. No ; Jesus 
 gave these teachings on prayer, together 
 with the pattern prayer, on a certain 
 occasion when, as he was praying, his 
 disciples came and asked him : " Lord, 
 teach us a prayer, as John the Baptist 
 taught his disciples." f How perverse 
 must be the mind which designates this 
 a fictitious setting ! How blind to what 
 we might learn from the divergences of 
 our witnesses, the man who can do no 
 better than hurry to the rescue with the 
 harmonistic suggestion : " Perhaps Jesus 
 taught the same prayer twice ! " 
 
 In a lecture of this kind I cannot, of 
 
 * Appendix C, p. 181. 
 
 t Again a common practice of the rabbi. Forms of 
 prayer for various occasions were taught the unlearned. 
 The Baptist in this, as in his fastings and his puritanic 
 ideas, was in sympathy with the best type of Phari- 
 saism. 
 
74 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 course, go through the entire list of Mat- 
 thew's additions, pointing out the probable 
 motive and derivation.* Suffice it that 
 the evidence is equally conclusive in sev- 
 eral other cases, and so conclusive that 
 those who admit at all this method of 
 study are agreed that we must remove to 
 other contexts many of these appended 
 logia, in order to get back to the original 
 discourse. There is no avoiding it. The 
 first step toward real and trustworthy 
 synthesis is along the beaten track of 
 analysis. 
 
 But what now of that other great section 
 of the Matthaean discourse, the antithesis 
 of morality and worship in the old law 
 and the new ? Were we here to proceed 
 on the simple rule of requiring the consent 
 of both witnesses, the great discourse would 
 be reduced indeed. Here, however, we 
 have not a case of material explicitly 
 related as belonging to another occasion 
 by another witness. As to this, Luke is 
 
 * Complete documentary analysis in Appendix A. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 75 
 
 simply silent. Moreover, we can account 
 for his silence, and there are even, as we 
 saw,* traces, perhaps faint, but significant, 
 of the former presence of the missing an- 
 tithesis. We are really applying the same 
 principles as before, when we say of the 
 notion of composition by Matthew, The 
 mind which can attribute a literary and 
 rhetorical unit of such symmetry and 
 beauty to such a compiler is either inept 
 or perverse. Imagine our evangelist 
 framing the exquisite literary balance of 
 the principle Mt. 6: 1, followed by the 
 three strophes, 2-4, 5-6, 16-18; and then 
 wantonly destroying it by inserting the 
 general instructions on prayer, vv. 7-15! 
 Or the five antitheses on the new morality, 
 Mt. 5:21-48; and then throwing in 
 between the first and second the say- 
 ings about reconciliation in 5 : 23-26! f 
 No, we may posit, as nearly all critics now 
 do, a third hand between the evangelist 
 
 * Supra, p. 17-19. 
 
 t Appendix A (5), p. 138. 
 
76 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 and the speaker ; and we may, with some, 
 make this precanonical author responsible 
 for the exquisite literary finish.* At least 
 he who has so marred it cannot be the 
 same who made it. But artistic as it cer- 
 tainly is, to the degree of almost poetic 
 refinement of expression, I see not why 
 all of even the rhetorical beauty must have 
 been the work of writer rather than of 
 speaker. Why may it not have character- 
 ized some of the more studied discourses 
 of the Prophet of Nazareth, rather than 
 the untrained pen of some Galilean pub- 
 lican ? We cannot, indeed, imagine Jesus' 
 teaching as confined to studied and arti- 
 ficial forms ; but neither was it always 
 unstudied. Such discourses as that on the 
 Baptist, " What went ye out for to see ? " 
 
 * There are also facts tending to show that the artistic 
 form, while precanonical, is still secondary. E.g. the 
 woes against the scribes and Pharisees, in Matthew 23, 
 are seven in number, in Luke 2, three against the 
 Pharisees followed by three against the scribes. Both 
 cannot be original. See Appendix A (6), p.141, and 
 Hawkins's Hora Synoptiae, pp. 1 31-136. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 77 
 
 or that on the sign of Jonah,* can never 
 have lacked the semi-lyric form of genuine 
 Hebrew prophecy. f 
 
 With the removal of the intrusive ele- 
 ments imported by our first evangelist, 
 and the restoration of those omitted by 
 Luke we hold the key to the actual dis- 
 course which has come to be our Sermon 
 on the Mount. Far from being a ram- 
 bling agglomeration of noble ideas on 
 half a dozen different subjects, this origi- 
 nal nucleus had the characteristic unity 
 of conception of the parables. In respect 
 to the section forming the main body of 
 the Matthaean discourse, the great antithe- 
 
 * Appendix C, p. 232. 
 
 f This striking, perhaps half-unconscious tendency 
 in the reported discourses of Jesus as in the Prophets 
 toward a poetic and even lyric structure is well illustrated 
 in the translations of Moffatt, in his Historical New 
 Testament, 1901. We refer the reader interested in 
 this special feature of our subject to the works cited 
 by Mr. Moffatt, p. xx ; as regards the Sermon on the 
 Mount in particular, to the articles by Professor C. A. 
 Briggs in the Expository Times, viii, pp. 393 f., 452f., 
 493 f.; ix, p. 69 f. 
 
78 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 ses on the " righteousness " of the new 
 kingdom, the Torah of Messiah, we must 
 apply to Luke the same principle we have 
 just applied to Matthew. This time it is 
 the Lucan report which decapitates the 
 most comprehensive discourse of Jesus on 
 the relation of his doctrine to the past. 
 The commandment to manifest a spirit of 
 kindness and serviceableness to all, even 
 to the unthankful and evil, in imitation of 
 the divine goodness, which in Lk. 6 : 27-38 
 stands deprived of its preceding context, 
 is the counterpart to the righteousness of 
 the scribes and Pharisees.* This contrast 
 formed the main subject of the original 
 discourse. We have only to add at begin- 
 ning and end the material uttered, on the 
 undisputed authority of both witnesses, on 
 
 * It is a further corroboration of our contention as to 
 the former presence in the Lucan report of the omitted 
 antitheses, that in the case referred to in our text the 
 motive appealed to, " Your reward shall be great," etc. 
 Lk. 6 : 35, although wanting in the parallel section of 
 Matthew, is that, even to phraseology, of the portions 
 given by Matthew only. See above, p. 38. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 79 
 
 this occasion, to have the " sermon " in its 
 original unity and completeness. I mean 
 at the beginning the Beatitudes, which 
 introduce the subject with a congratulation 
 of the hearers on the choice they have 
 made, and at the end the concluding appli- 
 cation and parable on the right and wrong 
 use of the principles enunciated. We 
 have seen that this conception of the 
 essential character and purpose of the 
 great discourse, as deliberately enunciat- 
 ing " the Law of Christ," is of no small 
 importance to our understanding of, first, 
 his own conception of his mission ; second, 
 the interpretations subsequently put upon 
 it in the anti-legalistic sense by Paul, in 
 the neo-legalistic sense by James, in the 
 mystical sense by John. 
 
 When we come to actual restoration of 
 the discourse there is wide difference in 
 detail between our two authorities ; but 
 in general Luke's account will approve 
 itself to the critic as the simpler and more 
 original, Matthew's as expanded by the 
 
80 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 attachment here and there of extraneous 
 logia. Among these I have mentioned 
 5 : 23-26, Reconciliation better than Sacri- 
 fice, and Let Israel be reconciled with God 
 ere too late.* One need only compare the 
 true context of 25, 26 in Lk. 12 : 54-59 (In- 
 terpret the Signs of the Times) f to see that 
 it has really nothing to do with the pro- 
 hibition of the spirit of anger in the an- 
 tithesis of Mt. 5:21, 22. Similar reason- 
 ing applies to the sayings on the Member 
 that causes Stumbling, 5 : 29, 30, attached to 
 the antithesis to the seventh command- 
 ment. % We find it in its true connection in 
 Mk. 9 : 43-48. The Salt, the Shining Light 
 (5: 13-16 = Mk. 4:21, 22 ; 9:49, 50), some 
 of the beatitudes, and a few minor touches 
 are also derived from other contexts. § 
 Our limitations forbid discussion in detail ; 
 only a guiding principle or two can be 
 indicated as between variant reports. 
 
 * Appendix A (5), p. 138. \ Appendix C, p. 246. 
 
 % Appendix A (6), p. 140. 
 
 § Appendix A (3), p. 130, and Appendix C, p. 258. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 81 
 
 Follow the form most closely allied to the 
 principal theme as already established. 
 Reject that which is not germane, injures 
 the sequence of thought, and whose pres- 
 ence can be better accounted for other- 
 wise than by utterance in this connection. 
 When the process of comparison is com- 
 plete, unless you differ widely from me 
 in your critical judgments, you will have 
 before you as the original discourse that 
 lies behind our reports, the following 
 initial address of Jesus to those whom he 
 had gathered about him as adherents in 
 the effort to give reality to the Kingdom 
 of God. I present it with such aid from 
 historical setting and otherwise as we can 
 gather from all the gospel sources, employ- 
 ing such typographical devices of titles, sub- 
 titles, spacing, leading, paragraphing, and 
 alignment to indicate strophic or other 
 rhetorical form, as the modern art of 
 printing suggests. I have also made a 
 somewhat freer translation than that of 
 Authorized or Revised Version, and added 
 
82 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 reference to parallel reports, where we 
 have them, in the headings, besides a few 
 references of an explanatory character in 
 the margin. Naturally the report which 
 seems to present the fullest trustworthy 
 statement is made the basis of each para- 
 graph, whether Matthew's, Mark's, or 
 Luke's. In a few cases the passage from 
 one authority to another requires the sup- 
 plying of a word. Words thus supplied are 
 enclosed in ( ). Omissions are indicated 
 by * * * with suspended C (i)(2) (3) when 
 the omitted material is given in proper 
 context in Appendix C. Where variant 
 readings have been adopted, a reference 
 is given to Appendix B, for the evidence. 
 The adoption of a different order, or of 
 one evangelist's report in preference to 
 another is similarly indicated by reference 
 to Appendix A. In typographical arrange- 
 ment the same plan has been followed as 
 in Appendix C, to which the reader is re- 
 ferred for further explanation and compar- 
 ison of similar discourses. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 83 
 
 Discourse of Jesus on the Higher Law of 
 the Kingdom of God 
 
 The Occasion 
 Mk. 3: 7-15" = Mt. 4: 24-25; 12: 15-16 = 
 
 Mk. 3 "And Jesus with his disciples with- 
 drew to the lake shore ; and a great multi- 
 tude from Galilee followed — 8 and from 
 Judaea and from Jerusalem and from Idu- 
 maea and beyond Jordan and about Tyre 
 and Sidon a great multitude, hearing how 
 great things he did came to him.* 9 And 
 he bade his disciples let a boat be in at- 
 tendance on him" on account of the crowd, <> Mk. 4:1. 
 that they might not crush him; 10 for he 
 had healed many, so that they thrust them- 
 
 * The structure of this sentence, supplementing the 
 " great multitude from Galilee " with a second " great 
 multitude" from remoter parts, is one of the indications 
 referred to in my In/rod., p. 206, that the narrative of 
 our Mark employs an older and simpler source, the char- 
 acteristic "graphic touches of Mark" being ordinarily 
 attached in this supplemental style, as indicated above 
 
 by the . Note again at the end of this paragraph 
 
 3: 7-15", how the list of apostles' names is attached. 
 
5:6. 
 
 84 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 selves upon him to touch him — all that 
 « Mk. s : 27, had scourges." * u And the unclean spirits 
 whenever they beheld him fell down be- 
 fore him and cried out, Thou art the Son 
 1:23-24; of God. 6 12 But he commanded them re- 
 peatedly not to make him known. 
 
 13 Then he goes up into the mountain 
 (country), and summons those whom he 
 himself desired and they went away to him. 
 14 And he appointed the twelve,! that they 
 
 * The word is peculiar, the only other instances in the 
 N. T. of its use in this metaphorical sense being in Lk. 
 7:21, and in Mark's story of the woman who was 
 healed by touching Jesus' garment. Verses 9-12 thus 
 show their generalizing editorial character ; for in three 
 consecutive instances we have the anticipation by a pro- 
 leptic general statement of striking instances, the full ac- 
 count of which follows in the course of the story — the 
 attendance of the boat (4: 1), healing by mere contact 
 from the crowd (5 : 27-29), and recognition by evil 
 spirits (5: 6). In the third case this is already the sec- 
 ond instance of such anticipation by the evangelist, he 
 having made a similar prolepsis in 1 : 24, 34. In the 
 second case also the generalization is repeated, the evan- 
 gelist even going so far in 6 : 56 as to declare that " all 
 who touched him were made whole." 
 
 t The better texts omit " whom he also called 
 apostles." 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 85 
 
 might stay with him, and that he might 
 (thereafter) send them out to preach 15 and 
 to have authority to exorcise demons." "6:7, 12, v. 
 
 PART I 
 
 THE EXORDIUM : JESUS CONGRATULATES 
 THOSE WHO SEEK THE KINGDOM. CON- 
 TRAST OF EARTHLY WITH HEAVENLY 
 GOOD 
 
 (1) Blessedness of those who seek Heavenly 
 Things 
 
 Lk. 6: 20-23 = Mt. 5 : I-I2 
 
 Lk. 6 20 And he himself, lifting up his 
 eyes on his disciples, said : 
 
 Blessed are ye poor, 
 
 for yours is the kingdom of God. 
 
 21 Blessed are ye that hunger, * * * B 
 for ye shall be filled. 
 
 Blessed are ye that weep, * * * B 
 for ye shall laugh. 
 
 22 Blessed are ye when men shall hate 
 
 you 
 * * * b an( j caS £ ou j. y 0ur name as 
 
 P VI 1 * * * 
 
 Rejoice * * * R and leap for joy; 
 
86 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 «mi. 6: i, 4, for, lo, your reward" in heaven is 
 
 6| l8, great ; 
 
 after the same manner did they to the 
 prophets * * *. B 
 
 (2) Wretchedness of Such as are content with 
 Earthly Good 
 
 Lk. 6 : 24-26 
 
 24 But woe to you that are rich, 
 » Mt. 6:2,5, for ye have had your comfort in full. 6 
 
 l6# ,& Woe to you that are well filled, 
 
 for ye shall be hungry. 
 
 Woe to you that laugh, * * * B 
 
 for ye shall mourn. 
 
 26 Woe when men shall speak well of you ; 
 after the same manner did they to the 
 false prophets.* 
 
 * Reasons for the textual changes indicated are given 
 in Appendix B (2). Reasons for following the Lucan 
 as against the Matthrean version as a basis in Appen- 
 dix A (2). It will be seen that the editorial additions in 
 the Lucan form are inappreciable in extent, consisting 
 almost exclusively in the addition of the single word 
 "now" in verses 21, 22, and 25, to make it clear that 
 the blessedness of the hungry, sorrowful, hated, is in 
 their heavenly reward, not in present conditions. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 87 
 
 PART II 
 
 THE MORAL STANDARD OF THE KINGDOM : 
 JESUS CONTRASTS THE NEW REQUIRE- 
 MENT WITH THE OLD 
 
 Thesis: The Divine Commonwealth is 
 founded on a Law of Absolute Right- 
 eousness 
 
 Jesus shows that the Self-imposed Standard of 
 the Free Children of the Kingdom is stricter 
 than the Written Code 
 
 Mt. 5:17, 19-20 
 
 Mt. 5 17 Think not that I came to undo 
 the Law ; 
 I came not to undo, but to com- 
 plete. 
 
 # * * # * A 
 
 19 Whosoever therefore shall relax 
 one of these least command- 
 ments 
 
 and teach men so 
 
 shall be called least" in the king- a i Cor. 15: 9. 
 dom of God. 
 
 But whoso shall do and teach, 
 
 he shall be called great in the 
 kingdom of God. A 
 
88 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 20 For I say unto you, Unless your 
 righteousness abound 
 beyond that of the scribes and 
 
 Pharisees 
 ye shall not enter into the king- 
 dom of God. 
 
 (i) The Royal Law. In Five Antitheses 
 Jesus illustrates the Higher Principle of 
 Duty to Man, contrasting it with the Cur- 
 rent Rules of Conduct 
 
 Mt. 5 : 21-48 mostly. Fragments in Luke 
 
 First Antithesis : He forbids the Spirit of Hatred 
 as against Prohibition of Murder and Libel 
 
 Mt. 5 : 21-22 
 
 Mt. 5 21 Ye have heard that it was said to 
 the ancients, 
 
 Thou shalt not kill, and whoso- 
 ever killeth 
 
 he shall be amenable to judg- 
 ment. 
 22 But I say unto you, 
 
 Whosoever is angry with his 
 brother 
 
 shall be amenable to judgment. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 89 
 
 (Moreover it was said), Bf3) * 
 Whosoever shall call his brother 
 
 Scoundrel 
 shall be amenable to the court. 
 23 But I say unto you, 
 Whosoever calleth him Simpleton 
 shall be amenable to the hell of 
 
 fact 
 
 Second Antithesis: Jesus forbids the Impure 
 
 Thought as against the Adulterous Deed 
 
 ML 5:27-28, 3 1-32-^ = Lk. 16:18 
 
 Mt. 5 ^Ye have heard that it was said, 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
 28 But I say unto you, 
 Every one that looketh on a 
 
 woman lustfully 
 hath already committed adultery 
 with her in his heart. 
 
 * For the conjectural emendation of text see Appen- 
 dix B (3) and Note by J. P. Peters, D.D., in Journ. of 
 Bib. Lit., 1892, i. p. 131. 
 
 tThe sense is, the new standard is absolute. The 
 malicious thought, the opprobrious epithet, even if not 
 legally actionable, will suffice to cast into the outer dark- 
 ness, the place where offal was destroyed. Jewish law 
 was exceptionally severe against slander and libel. The 
 new law surpasses even this. 
 
90 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 31 Moreover it was said, 
 
 Whoso would put away his wife 
 must give her a certificate of 
 divorce.* 
 
 32 But I say unto you, 
 
 Every one that putteth away his 
 w j£ e * * * b(4) committeth 
 
 "Mk.io:n- adultery"; 
 
 12; Lk. 16: anc j w h oso marrieth her that was 
 
 18. 
 
 divorced committeth adultery. 
 
 Third Antithesis : Jesus forbids Untruthfulness 
 as against the Prohibition of Perjury 
 
 Mt. 5 : 33-37 
 Mt. 5 33 Again ye have heard that it was 
 said to the ancients, 
 Forswear not thyself, 
 but perform thine oaths to the 
 Lord. 
 
 34 But I say unto you 
 Swear not at all : 
 
 neither by heaven, for it is God's 
 throne ; 
 
 35 nor by earth, for it is his foot- 
 
 stool ; 
 
 * A humane restriction of the Mosaic law upon the 
 unlimited right of repudiation allowed to the husband in 
 the days when woman had been a chattel only. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 91 
 
 nor by Jerusalem, for it is the 
 city of the great King ; 
 36 neither by thy head, for thou 
 canst not make one hair white 
 or black.* 
 37 "But let your yea be yea, and «jas. 5:12. 
 your nay nay, B(5) 
 what exceedeth this is from the 
 Evil One.f 
 
 Fourth Antithesis : Jesus forbids ///-treatment 
 of Any Man, as against the Limitation of 
 Reta/iation 
 
 Mt. 5:38-42; 7: 12 = Lk. 6: 29-31 
 
 Mt. 5 38 Ye have heard that it was said, 
 An eye (only) for an eye, and a 
 tooth (only) % for a tooth. 
 39 But I say unto you, 
 Resist not the violent. 
 
 * Mt. 23:16-22 shows how scribal casuists had 
 yielded to the besetting sin of their kind, inventing 
 forms of oaths for evading their obligation. A simple 
 yes or no must suffice in the kingdom. 
 
 f That is, proceeds from the intent to deceive or the 
 assumption of its possibility. Both are inadmissible sup- 
 positions in the divine commonwealth. 
 
 \ Another humane limitation imposed by the Mosaic 
 law on the wild blood revenge of the primitive Bedouin; 
 cf. Gen. 4 : 23-24. 
 
92 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 Lk. 6 ^ To him that smiteth thee on the 
 cheek 
 offer also the other. 
 Mt. 5 40 And if any would sue thee and 
 take thy cloak* 
 let him have the tunic as well. 
 41 And whoso would impress thee 
 for one mile, 
 go with him two. 
 Give to him that asketh, 
 and from him that would borrow 
 turn not away. 
 
 7 ^ So whatsoever ye would that 
 men should do unto you, 
 do even so unto them * * *. B < 6 ) 
 
 Fifth Antithesis : Jesus imposes an Unlimited 
 and Universal as against a Limited Obliga- 
 tion of Kindness 
 
 Mt. 5 : 43-48 = Lk. 6 : 27-28, 32-36 
 
 Mt. 5 43 Ye have heard that it was said 
 Love thy neighbor and hate f 
 thine enemy, 
 
 * That is, show himself a merciless creditor. Mosaic 
 law forbade taking the cloak over night, Ex. 22: 26-27; 
 Deut. 24: 10-13. 
 
 t A Semitic method of emphasizing a distinction 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 93 
 
 44 But I say unto you, 
 Love your enemies, 
 and pray for them that persecute 
 
 you; 
 46 that ye may be sons of your 
 
 Father in heaven. 
 For he maketh his sun to rise 
 
 on both wicked and good, 
 and the rain to fall on just and 
 
 unjust. 
 
 46 For if ye love them that love 
 
 you, what credit" have ye ? « 5 : 12 ; 6 : 2, 
 Do not the very tax-gatherers 5> l6; Lk - 6: 
 the same ? 
 
 (cf. Mt. lo:37 = Lk. 14:26). The O. T. does not, 
 of course, affirmatively inculcate hatred, even to ene- 
 mies, but simply assumes, and occasionally exemplifies 
 it, as in the imprecatory psalms ; this being involved 
 in the limitation of its requirement of good-will to the 
 "neighbor" (Lev. 19: 18). The present passage shows 
 that Jesus is not ignorant of the real meaning of the 
 commandment Lev. 19: 18, although he employs it (Mt. 
 22:39), and even — in the haggadic sense — interprets 
 and applies it (Lk. 10:27-37) > n a sense transcending 
 its original intent. In other words, he is perfectly con- 
 scious that he is imposing a higher standard than that 
 of the Torah. 
 
94 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 47 And if ye say ' God be with 
 you ' * to your brethren only, 
 what credit have ye ? 
 Do not the very Gentiles the 
 same ? 
 
 Lk. 6 ffi But love your enemies, 
 
 and do good and lend without 
 
 hope of return 
 and your reward shall be great," 
 and ye shall be sons of the 
 
 Highest ; 
 for he is kind even to the un- 
 thankful and the wicked. 
 Mt 5 48 Ye therefore shall be complete in 
 goodness f 
 as your Father in heaven is 
 complete. B(7) 
 
 ♦Literally, "give greeting." But the Jewish greet- 
 ing was a sacred blessing which, it was thought, would 
 be profaned if invoked on the heathen or infidel. Hence 
 the prohibition in 2 Jn. io-ii, which shows more of 
 the spirit rebuked by Jesus in Mk. 9 : 38 than that of the 
 present passage. Hence also the general directions in 
 Mt. 10: 12-13 > Lk. 10: 4. We translate "say 'God be 
 with you ' " to bring out the correspondence with v. 44, 
 " Pray for them that persecute you." 
 
 t TVXeios is doubtless employed here by the evangelist 
 precisely as in 19 : 21, of the ultimate stage of righteous- 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 95 
 
 (2) The Spiritual Worship. In Three Fur- 
 ther Antitheses Jesus illustrates the 
 Higher Principle of Duty to God, con- 
 trasting it with Current Types of Piety 
 
 Mt. 6: 1-6, 16-18 
 
 The Principle : Worship must be in Spirit and 
 Truth 
 Mt. 6: i 
 
 Mt. 6 1 Take heed to your acts of piety 
 that ye do them not before men 
 
 to be seen of them, 
 Otherwise ye have no reward" °s^ 2 . 46; 
 with your Father in heaven. 
 
 First Illustrative Antithesis : Almsgiving 
 Mt. 6 : 2-4 
 
 Mt. 6 2 Thus when thou art giving alms, 
 make not a flourish of trumpets* 
 as do the hypocrites 
 
 ness. Luke renders ad sensum oiKrlpfioves, " compas- 
 sionate " ; which is correct in meaning but fails to bring 
 out the contrast intended with the limited obligation as- 
 sumed in the casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees. 
 Compare Jesus' teaching on the limit of forgiveness, Mt. 
 18: 21-22. 
 
 * Probably only a metaphor. Actual trumpet blow- 
 ing is improbable. Even an allusion to the trumpet- 
 
 Lk.6: 35 . 
 
96 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 in the synagogues and on the 
 
 streets 
 that they may be honored by 
 
 men. 
 Of a truth I say unto you, 
 They have their reward" in full.* 
 
 3 But thou, when thou art giving 
 
 alms, 
 let not thy left hand know what 
 thy right is doing, f 
 
 4 that thine almsgiving may be in 
 
 secret ; 
 And thy Father which seeth in 
 
 secret 
 shall recompense thee.f 
 
 shaped bronze orifices of the temple contribution boxes, 
 which could doubtless be " sounded " with a good-sized 
 coin, is at the best a precarious supposition. 
 
 * On the sense of dir^x^^ 11 ^ the technical term em- 
 ployed in receipts in the contemporary Greek papyri to 
 signify discharge of the obligation, see Deissmann, Bible 
 Studies, 1900, s.v. Deissmann renders, "They may give 
 their receipt in full." 
 
 f Perhaps an allusion to the Pharisees' ostentatious 
 passing of the coin from one hand to the other, that by- 
 standers may not fail to be impressed. 
 
 X The principle, " He that giveth to the poor lendeth 
 to the Lord," is not in dispute. Granting that almsgiving 
 is an act of piety deserving reward, and so a way to 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 97 
 
 Second Antithesis : Prayer 
 
 Mt. 6 : 5-6 
 
 Mt. 6 5 And when ye are praying 
 be not like the hypocrites ; 
 for they love to stand and pray 
 
 in the synagogues 
 and on the corners of the streets,* 
 that they may be seen of men. 
 Of a truth I say unto you, 
 They have their reward in full. 
 6 But thou, when thou prayest, 
 enter into the inner room 
 and shut the door, 
 and pray in secret to thy Father; 
 and thy Father, which seeth in 
 
 secret, 
 shall recompense thee. 
 
 lay up treasure in heaven (cf. Lk. 16: 1-9), Jesus points 
 out that it cannot both be laid up in heaven and enjoyed 
 (in the shape of honor from men) on earth. This is sim- 
 ply an illustration of the fallacy that the play-actors' wor- 
 ship (17 rod uiroKpiTov) puts God under some obligation. 
 Such worship cannot, for it is not really directed to him, 
 but to the bystanders. Jesus is not committed, however, 
 by the illustration, to the doctrine that God can be made 
 debtor to a man by his almsgiving (cf. Lk. 17: 10). 
 
 * Overtaken midway by the hour of prayer (9 A.M., 
 or 3 P.M.). 
 
 H 
 
98 Tbe Sermon on the Mount 
 
 Third Antithesis : Fasting 
 
 Mt. 6:16-18 
 
 Mt. 6 16 And when ye are fasting, 
 be not like the hypocrites 
 wry-faced ; 
 
 for they disfigure their faces 
 that they may figure* as fasting 
 
 before men. 
 Of a truth I say unto you, 
 They have their reward in full. 
 
 17 But thou, when thou art fasting, 
 Anoint thy head and wash thy 
 
 face, 
 
 18 that thou appear not as a faster 
 
 unto men, 
 but unto thy Father [that is in 
 
 secret ?]. B(8) 
 And thy Father [that seeth in 
 
 secret] B<8) 
 shall recompense thee.f 
 
 *' A(f>av[£ov<riv liirus (pavGxriv, a word-play, if not acci- 
 dental. 
 
 f We may notice that the antitheses of the true wor- 
 ship conclude with a reference to future recompense, as 
 did the exordium (Lk. 6: 22) and the antitheses of the 
 true ethics (Lk. 6: 35). See above, pp. 86 and 94. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 99 
 
 PART III 
 
 APPLICATION OF THE NEW LAW. JESUS 
 SHOWS HOW TO USE, AND HOW NOT TO 
 USE ITS STANDARD 
 
 First Principle 
 
 Not for Censoriousness, but Self-correction 
 Mt. 7:1-5 = Lk. 6: 37', 38", 41-42 
 
 Mt. 7 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged ; 
 
 2 for with what judgment ye judge 
 
 ye shall be judged 
 [and with what measure ye meas- 
 ure out, it shall be measured 
 back to you?]. A(9) 
 
 3 But why regardest thou the splin- 
 
 ter in thy brother's eye 
 but considerest not the beam in 
 thine own eye ? 
 
 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy 
 
 brother, 
 let me remove the splinter from 
 
 thine eye, 
 and, lo, there is a beam in thine 
 
 own eye 
 
 5 Hypocrite, remove first the beam 
 from thine own eye 
 
100 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 and then shalt thou see clearly to 
 remove the splinter from thy 
 brother's eye. 
 
 Second Principle 
 
 Reform must be from Within 
 Mt. 7:18; 12 : a, 35 = Lk. 6 : 43, 45 
 
 Mt. 7 18 A good tree cannot bear bad 
 bad fruit, 
 nor a rotten tree produce good 
 fruit. 
 12 ^ Either make the tree good and 
 its fruit good, 
 or make the tree rotten and its 
 fruit rotten. 
 
 ***** A(10) 
 
 35 The good man from his good store 
 bringeth forth good things, 
 and the evil man from his evil 
 store bringeth forth evil things. 
 
 Third Principle 
 
 Deeds, not Words demanded 
 Lk. 6 : 46-49 = Mt. 7 : 21-27 
 
 Thesis Lk. 6 ^ And why call ye me Lord, 
 Lord, and do not the 
 things which I say ? 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 101 
 
 Parable 47 Every one that heareth my words 
 and doeth them, 
 shall be likened to a wise man, 
 Mt. 7 24b that built his house upon a 
 rock. Ii(9) 
 48 The rains poured down, the 
 floods came, 
 the winds blew and beat upon 
 
 that house ; 
 and it fell not, 
 Mt. 7 25b for it was founded on the rock. 
 
 26 And every one that heareth my 
 
 words 
 and doeth them not, 
 shall be likened to a foolish man, 
 that built his house upon the 
 
 sand. B(9) 
 
 27 The rain poured down, the floods 
 
 came, 
 the winds blew and beat upon 
 
 that house ; 
 and it fell 
 and the fall thereof was great* 
 
 * O. Holtzmann (Le&en/esu, p. 77) points out that 
 with Jesus metaphors from the builder's trade are spe- 
 cially frequent, confirming the view that t£ktuv in Mk. 
 6: 3 should be rendered " builder." 
 
102 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 The Colophon 
 Mk. 1 : 22 = Mt. 7 : 28 = Lk. 7 : i» 
 
 Mt. 7 M And it came to pass when Jesus 
 had finished these sayings, the crowds 
 were amazed at his teaching ; 29 for his way 
 of teaching them was as of one that has 
 authority, and not as their scribes. 
 
 An Appended Incident 
 
 Healing of the Centurion's Serz'ant 
 Lk. 7 : i b -io = Mt. 8 : 5-10, 13 = Jn. 4 : 46 b ~54 
 
 Lk. 7 1 And he entered into Capernaum. 
 2 And a certain centurion had a slave that 
 was dear to him, who was sick and at the 
 point of death. 3 And when he heard 
 about Jesus he sent elders of the Jews unto 
 
 "Acts 10:5. him/' asking him to come and heal his 
 slave. 4 And these came to Jesus and be- 
 sought him earnestly, 5 saying that the man 
 
 * Acts 10: 2. was worthy'' that he should do this for 
 him ; for he loveth our nation, and himself 
 built the synagogue for us. 6 And Jesus 
 went with them. But when he was already 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 103 
 
 not far from the house, the centurion sent 
 
 friends" to say to him, My lord, take no "Acts 10: 25 
 
 s text. 
 
 trouble ; for I am not of dignity enough 
 that thou shouldst enter beneath my roof. 
 7 For this reason also I did not deem my- 
 self worthy to come to thee (in person); 
 but give direction by a word and my ser- 
 vant shall be healed. 8 For I too am a man 
 ranked under authority, having soldiers 
 under me, and I say to one, Go, and he go- 
 eth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, 
 and to my slave, Do this, and he doeth it. 
 9 And when Jesus heard this he marvelled 
 at him, and turned and said to the crowd 
 that followed him : I tell you I have not 
 seen so great faith not even in Israel. 
 
 10 Now when the messengers had re- 
 turned home they found the slave con- 
 valescent. 
 
 Such in context and content is the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount after application of the 
 methods of the higher criticism, the pro- 
 cesses which you may have heard described 
 
104 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 — often with large expenditure of wit at 
 the expense of a little body of indefatigable 
 scholars — as "cutting the Bible to pieces." 
 I must leave you to judge whether the ac- 
 cusations are deserved. One thing is cer- 
 tain. Whatever external and more or less 
 artificial unity of connection to which we 
 have grown accustomed is broken up, no 
 thoughtful person can deny that unity of 
 thought and logical connection characterize 
 the discourse as thus conjecturally restored 
 in far higher degree than the Matthaean 
 composite, as we must now consider it. In 
 other words, the process decried as a cut- 
 ting to pieces is one which tends, in all 
 that lies behind the mere dead letter, to 
 unity and order, a process which results 
 not in a chaotic mass of disjecta membra, 
 but in organic unities of logical sequence 
 and literary beauty. Some accustomed 
 portions of the pile are gone indeed. We 
 miss the logical and literary excrescences. 
 Rut what has become of them ? Were they 
 "cast as rubbish to the void"? On the 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 105 
 
 contrary, restored to their appropriate con- 
 text, they have no longer even the appear- 
 ance of excrescences which was put upon 
 them only by displacement. Of the value 
 of these methods in the given instance 
 you must judge by the results. If both 
 analysis and synthesis produce a gain in 
 perspicacity and order, if in such salient 
 examples as the discourse on the True 
 Content of Life or Earthly versus Heav- 
 enly Riches, the Discourse on Prayer, 
 and the Warning to Israel to be Recon- 
 ciled ere too late with her great Adversary, 
 not only the Sermon on the Mount is the 
 gainer by the removal, but the section re- 
 moved by its new setting, then the method 
 is justified both by its logic and its results. 
 We shall be warranted in seeking to apply 
 it further. 
 
 But the result in the specific instance of 
 the great discourse on the Higher Right- 
 eousness is what now concerns us. Grant 
 that we have succeeded in establishing a 
 connected logical unity and in exhibiting in 
 
106 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 outline its principal substance, and it will 
 be impossible, I think, to deny that our 
 first evangelist is right in his apparent 
 design to depict Jesus in the attitude of 
 a second Moses, a title expressly given 
 him by the primeval Jewish church. Not 
 that Jesus put himself forward as such a 
 law-giver, even in the inner circle of his 
 disciples. Quite the contrary. But that 
 he was fully conscious that nothing would 
 fully meet their need, which did not wholly 
 replace for them that institution which in 
 the heart of every true Jew was dominant 
 over every other consideration, religious 
 or secular — the Law, the To rah divinely 
 revealed to Moses, Israel's charter as the 
 People of God. To be a People of God 
 in very truth, and as he would have them, 
 Jesus knew that the great cry and expec- 
 tation of his people for a new law must 
 be met. And in form he gave it to them. 
 In form even the briefer utterance which 
 we take to be the original discourse is a 
 new Torah. Jesus assumed personally the 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 107 
 
 authority not indeed to enact, but to make 
 known the absolute divine law, as it must 
 needs be under the ideal conditions of the 
 kingdom he proclaimed. The antitheses 
 of old and new, past and future require- 
 ment, cannot be eliminated, and will bear 
 no other interpretation. In form the 
 very watchword of legalism is adopted — 
 " recompense." " Great is your reward in 
 heaven," "your reward shall be great," 
 "else ye have no reward," " He that seeth 
 in secret shall reward thee." It seems to 
 echo everywhere the Pharisaic idea, " What 
 shall I do that I may have a claim on eter- 
 nal life ? " In form it is as completely neo- 
 legalistic as the Matthaean answer to this 
 question. In reality there is just as much 
 and just as little of literalness in the inten- 
 tion of the answer as in the reply, " Go, sell 
 all that thou hast and give to the poor, 
 and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, 
 and come, follow me to martyrdom." The 
 expectation of the legalist is met to the 
 ear, but broken to the hope. Jesus' para- 
 
108 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 dox seems to promise that a little further 
 effort along the line of the righteousness 
 of scribe and Pharisee will gain the long 
 coveted reward. In reality the new re- 
 quirement is so exorbitant that all mere 
 mercenary righteousness collapses before it 
 and " turns away sorrowful." Mere hope 
 of heavenly recompenses cannot face such 
 requirements as forbid not only the act of 
 hate or lust, but the slightest unkind word 
 or impure thought, and command the turn- 
 ing of the other cheek in place of retalia- 
 tion. Even a Saul of Tarsus found the 
 struggle hopeless when the law demanded, 
 "Thou shalt not desire."* When, there- 
 fore, the New Law culminates in the posi- 
 tive requirement of unlimited love and 
 service even to the unthankful and evil, 
 because such is the righteousness exer- 
 cised by God, and promises on this condi- 
 tion, "Your reward shall be great — ye 
 
 * Rom. 7 : 7. Saul's Bible was Greek, and the Greek 
 Owe itridvfirj(7€LS conveys this sense. Evil desire, i-rridv/xla, 
 is to Paul the essence of sin. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 109 
 
 shall be children of the Highest," it is not 
 expected that the Pharisaic spirit will be at- 
 tracted, but rather supremely disappointed. 
 In such rare atmosphere it can no longer 
 sustain itself. He who obeys the law in 
 mere hope of reward must turn away a 
 wiser if a sadder man. 
 
 And if in all the succeeding section on 
 the God-ward duties, almsgiving, prayer, 
 fasting, the refrain, "Thy Father shall re- 
 ward thee," still recurs, such (to the legal- 
 ist) vague assurance in place of the detailed 
 and specific promises extracted by the rab- 
 bis from Scripture will have seemed like 
 mockery after what precedes. 
 
 What then is the fundamental nature 
 of this discourse, as the closest critical 
 scrutiny reveals it ? In a single word it 
 is not legislative, as our first evangelist 
 seems to regard it, but prophetic. It 
 does not enact, but interprets. It does not 
 lay down rules, but opens up principles. 
 It was indeed from the standpoint of the 
 historian of Jesus' life and teaching a 
 
110 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 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 ministering love toward all. We can 
 scarcely understand that the five great 
 interpretative antitheses of the new law 
 of conduct toward men versus the old, 
 and the three corresponding antitheses 
 on duty toward God, could have been 
 dropped in one form of even the oral 
 tradition ; still less that an evangelist, 
 anxious to " set forth in order a declara- 
 tion " of the full content of Christian tra- 
 dition, after "accurately tracing it up to 
 the very first," should have deliberately 
 cancelled such invaluable material. And 
 yet our third evangelist, by thus concen- 
 trating upon the simple affirmation of the 
 law of love, shows that in real insight 
 into the Speaker's purpose he surpasses 
 the author of the fuller report. Matthew, 
 as we have seen, is quite absorbed in the 
 relation of the new To rah to the old. So 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 111 
 
 much so that he fails to appreciate that 
 his material is not really a series of new 
 enactments, but in reality, just as Luke 
 perceives, a simple application to the sit- 
 uation of that one principle which Jesus 
 elsewhere enunciates more briefly ; and 
 not then as enacting something new, but 
 as explaining the old. A certain scribe 
 came unto him with one of the debated 
 questions of the day : Rabbi, which is the 
 great commandment of the Law ? Jesus 
 went further than the great Hillel had 
 gone in the saying, " What thou wouldest 
 not that others should do unto thee, do 
 not unto them ; this is the whole Law, 
 the rest is commentary." Jesus replied : 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
 all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
 with all thy mind. This is the first and 
 great commandment. And the second is 
 like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
 as thyself. On these two commandments 
 hang all the Law and the Prophets." * 
 
 * Mt. 22 : 35-40. 
 
112 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 As our Johannine interpreter has shown,* 
 even these two are one. 
 
 What now is our great discourse on the 
 new Torah but an expansion of this one 
 " new commandment " in its two divisions, 
 and application of it to the question, 
 How shall the Law be renewed in the 
 Kingdom of Messiah ? The five antith- 
 eses of ethics are not so many new 
 enactments in place of the old. They 
 are not the substitution of one new and 
 broader rule of conduct toward men, in 
 place of many. They are not rules at 
 all. They are illustrations of the one 
 principle which Jesus saw in " all the 
 Law and the Prophets," and saw as well 
 in all nature and history, that the divine 
 calling is to ministering love and service 
 — that, and that alone. The three an- 
 titheses of religion are not so many new 
 enactments in place of the Mosaic cere- 
 monial. They are not even the substitu- 
 
 * Jn. 2:5-15; 3:10-18; 4: 16-21; 5:1-3; Jn. 15: 
 
 9-14, '7- 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 113 
 
 tion of one universal rule of worship in 
 spirit and in truth for innumerable forms. 
 They are not rules. They illustrate, in 
 the particular problem, What is the relation 
 of worship in the kingdom of God to that 
 now current ? — the one principle that the 
 divine calling to ministering love and ser- 
 vice is a calling of man into the fellowship 
 of his own nature, a relation of sonship 
 and fatherhood. 
 
 This, then, is the real and fundamental 
 significance of the great discourse on the 
 New Law of Christ. Taken as a whole 
 it exhibits the mystical sense of its open- 
 ing paradox, " I came not to destroy, but 
 to fulfil." In Pauline language, "Christ 
 is the end of the Law unto righteousness 
 for every one that believeth ; " because 
 all the Law is fulfilled in this one word, 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," 
 and the new " Law of Christ," that we 
 "bear one another's burdens," is not a 
 law, but an animating spirit. Thus the 
 purpose of the Law is achieved, not indeed 
 
114 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 by its hopes of reward and threats of 
 penalty, but by the gift of a new divine 
 disposition from Him who alone is 
 "good"; and being achieved, the Law 
 is done away. 
 
 In the mind of the great Teacher 
 accordingly the form of a New Law in 
 which he casts his teaching is a form 
 only. The legalistic conception is as 
 foreign to it as when Paul himself em- 
 ploys the term " the law of Christ." His 
 hearers' minds are as completely fettered 
 by the current legalism as that of the 
 young ruler, prototype of Saul, whom he 
 " looked upon and loved." And Jesus 
 takes their point of view. Not indeed 
 wholly as a matter of condescension ; for, 
 as a form, it is as natural to him as to 
 them. But his deeper religious sense, 
 the mysticism of his God-consciousness, 
 triumphs over it. In the very adoption 
 of this legal form for his demand of 
 righteousness,* he shows them their need 
 
 * On this point, see Beyschlag, op. cit., Vol. I. ch. 5, § 1. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 115 
 
 of a higher, because when they have done 
 all, they will still have no claim to eternal 
 life. The most they can say on the basis 
 of merit will be : " We are unprofitable 
 servants. We have done that which it 
 was our duty to do." 
 
 Long, indeed, was it before the church 
 could apprehend this higher point of view. 
 Even the polemic anti-legalism of Paul 
 could not lift the dead weight of centuries 
 of training under the conception of "moral 
 government." We trace the reactionary 
 tendency in the additions of the compiler 
 of the Sermon on the Mount, evidenced 
 by the variant report of Luke and by 
 inherent inconsistency with the context, 
 in further additions of scribes of mediaeval 
 times, evidenced by the variation of man- 
 uscripts, finally in the unconscious addi- 
 tions of modern interpreters, all in the 
 same direction, all assuming that after all 
 Jesus, in this case, was a casuist and not 
 a preacher ; a legislator, not a herald of 
 the glad tidings ; that he taught rules 
 
116 Tl)e Sermon on the Mount 
 
 of conduct rather than principles of reli- 
 gion. 
 
 Take as examples of that neo-legalistic 
 coloration which precedes the formation 
 of our first gospel, the scrupulous qualifi- 
 cations attached in the Matthaean form 
 of the Beatitudes, guarding the terms on 
 which the blessings may be had, as though 
 the Speaker had been too liberal with his 
 offer of the divine bounty for a general 
 audience ; the clause in v. 16, which ex- 
 plains the "light" as "good works "; above 
 all, the insertion of 5 : 18 with its insistence 
 on the minutiae of the letter of the Law in 
 the midst of a context which aims to free 
 from the letter and exalt the spirit. 
 
 As examples of the continuation of the 
 same process by mediaeval scribes take 
 the addition from Ps. 37:11 to the Beati- 
 tudes, the proviso in Mt. 5:11 that the 
 evil speaking endured must be " false " to 
 deserve reward, and the addition " with- 
 out a cause " to the prohibition of anger 
 in 5 : 22. 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 117 
 
 Even so noble and free a spirit as Tolstoi 
 in modern times cannot free himself from 
 the misconception of Jesus as a casuist in 
 his interpretation of the doctrine of non- 
 resistance. But more often literalism is 
 applied to the antithesis of goodness as 
 the cure for wrong rather than retaliation, 
 sometimes involving disparagement of the 
 great Teacher, as if he had really at- 
 tempted to sit in Moses' seat, and had 
 shown his unfitness for practical legisla- 
 tion. Yet an immense majority of laymen 
 and ecclesiastics, even among Protestants, 
 sin just as egregiously against the real 
 meaning of Jesus, when they attempt to 
 formulate an ecclesiastical law of divorce 
 on the basis of Mt. 5 : 32. It is true that 
 they have here the bad example of the 
 evangelist, who by inserting the exception 
 " save on account of fornication " here and 
 in Mt. 19:9 perverts the sense, and con- 
 tradicts every other reference of the New 
 Testament*; but in spite of this textual 
 
 * Appendix B (4), p. 1 77. 
 
118 The Sermon on the Mount 
 
 corruption the whole spirit of the passage, 
 the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, and 
 Jesus' teaching on other occasions should 
 have taught us that Jesus was not enact- 
 ing a divorce law, but preaching, like the 
 prophet Malachi, " The Lord hateth put- 
 ting away." It is chosen to serve as a 
 second illustration in the antithesis on 
 purity of thought versus action, because 
 of the base motive which then as now was 
 in most cases directly or indirectly the 
 cause of "putting away." The word of 
 Jesus leaves the Christian statesman abso- 
 lutely untrammelled to legislate on this 
 subject simply and solely for the highest 
 interests of the family, the state, and social 
 order. If he be truly loyal to the teach- 
 ing of Christ he will legislate, whether 
 stringently or loosely, as he deems best 
 for these interests, because they are also 
 the interests of the Kingdom of God. 
 
 In conclusion, I can but urge you to a 
 study of the great discourse itself. Under- 
 stand Jesus by his own words read to the 
 
The Sermon on the Mount 1 19 
 
 utmost in their original setting and connec- 
 tion. Who is Paul, and who is Apollos, 
 who is Matthew, or Luke, or John, but 
 ministers through whom we believe ? Un- 
 derstand Jesus as a prophet, a preacher, a 
 herald of glad tidings, and all these first 
 to his own times. And as you come more 
 and more fully to understand him thus, 
 more and more fully will you find him for 
 all time and times, the Way, the Truth, 
 and the Life. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 ANALYTICAL NOTES 
 
 (i) The Historical Setting 
 
 Mk. 3: 7-12 = Mt. 12: 15, 16; 4: 24,25 = 
 Lk. 6: 17-19 
 
 In Mark, our earliest gospel, the description 
 of the importunate multitudes flocking to Jesus 
 as the result of his spreading fame as a healer 
 introduces an important section of the biography. 
 The preceding section, 2 : 1-3 : 6, had illustrated 
 how Jesus' independent ways brought him into 
 more and more serious collision with the 
 authorities, culminating in the plot against his 
 life, 3 : 6. The evangelist returns now to the 
 point reached at the close of the first chapter, 
 where the disobedience of those he healed to 
 his injunctions of silence had resulted in serious 
 injury to his real work of evangelization, " so 
 that he was no longer able openly to enter a 
 city, but was without in desert places, and they 
 came to him from every quarter." In 3 : 7- 
 121 
 
122 Appendix A 
 
 6 : 12 the evangelist explains how Jesus met the 
 problem (a) by the selection and training of a 
 group of disciples, 3 : 13-35, (&) by l ' ie teaching 
 in parables, 4 : 1-34. The series of incidents 
 in 4 : 35-5 : 43 are illustrative of 3 : 14, 15, how 
 Jesus trained the Twelve to " go forth and 
 preach " and to " have power over demons." 
 The episode of 3 : io b -35 is introduced to show 
 how Jesus gave his disciples the place of his 
 earthly kin, and is itself forced apart by the 
 insertion of the story of the unforgivable blas- 
 phemy of the scribes from Jerusalem, 3 : 22-30, 
 by way of contrast with the pardonable fault 
 of Jesus' mother and brethren.* The episode 
 of Jesus' rejection in Nazareth, 6 : 1-6, stands 
 where it does as a kind of colophon to the story 
 of Jesus' personal preaching. " His own re- 
 ceived him not." 
 
 * But a totally independent version of this saying and 
 its occasion (My mother and brethren are " they that 
 hear the word of God and keep it ") is given in Lk. 
 1 1 : 27-28 which coincides with Mark's in the repre- 
 sentation that it was uttered on the day of the great 
 collision with " the scribes from Jerusalem" (vv. 15-22). 
 This would indicate actual historical coincidence and 
 not merely collocation for didactic purposes. 
 
Appendix A 123 
 
 The general description, Mk. 3:7-12, thus 
 constitutes the introduction to that whole sec- 
 tion of the gospel which ends with the Mission 
 of the Twelve, 6 : 7-12. It is natural therefore 
 that the evangelist should anticipate here some 
 of the illustrative special traits he subsequently 
 relates in their specific connection. Striking 
 examples of such prolepsis appear (a) in v. 9, 
 where the utilization of the boat as an ex- 
 temporized pulpit is anticipated from 4:1, 
 (6) in v. 10, where the endeavor of those 
 who had " scourges " (/taortyas, as in 5 : 29, 34) 
 to touch him is anticipated from 5:27, and 
 (c) in v. n, which generalizes the specific 
 instances subsequently related in 5:6. These 
 instances clearly establish the character and 
 purpose of Mk. 3 : 7-12, at the same time justify- 
 ing the primeval tradition as to the order of 
 Mark generally as representing rather the exi- 
 gencies of didactic method (tt^os tt)v xP c ^ av ) than 
 chronological order (ov /xcVtoi tc££«).* 
 
 * Modern criticism is so much impressed with the 
 relatively original and historical order of Mark, as 
 compared with our other gospels, as to pay altogether 
 too little attention to this real characteristic. 
 
124 Appendix A 
 
 No good critic who reads side by side Mk. 
 3:7-12 and Lk. 6:17-19 will deny the de- 
 pendence of Luke, so that demonstration would 
 here be a waste of words. 
 
 The matter is somewhat different in Matthew, 
 because in this gospel two parts are made of 
 the description. Mk. 3:7, 10% 12 are utilized 
 in Mt. 12 : 15-21 to introduce in w. 22-50 that 
 which next follows in Mark, the blasphemy of 
 the scribes from Jerusalem vs. the opposition 
 of Jesus' mother and brethren. The appoint- 
 ment and list of the Twelve (Mk. 3 : 13-19) 
 drops out because already given from the Logia 
 source (Mt. 10 : 1-4). The rest (Mk. 3 : 8, 10, 
 11), omitting the proleptic special features, is 
 utilized in Mt. 4 : 24, 25 for the same purpose 
 as in Luke. This coincidence, as Wendt * 
 remarks, may be accounted for on the sup- 
 position that in the Logia a similar situation 
 was given for the discourse,! i n view of the 
 fact that both evangelists, in spite of their 
 representation of Jesus as surrounded by vast 
 multitudes, begin by saying that he addressed 
 
 * Lehre Jesu, Vol. I. p. 53. 
 f See, however, p. 65. 
 
Appendix A 125 
 
 his " disciples." And such would seem to be the 
 nature of the discourse itself, though by paBijrai 
 it certainly meant more than the Twelve alone. 
 
 (2) The Beatitudes 
 
 Mt. 5:1-12 = Lk. 6 : 20-24, an d Woes, Lk. 6 : 24-26 
 
 On the question whether Luke or Matthew, 
 as between the two widely discrepant represen- 
 tations of the introductory portion of the address, 
 represents greater originality, the judgment of 
 Holtzmann * and Wendt f is certainly correct. 
 As Wendt has shown, the supposed Ebionism of 
 the Lucan source is not present. Not the con- 
 ditions of admission to the kingdom of God are 
 laid down, else even Matthew, with all its en- 
 deavor to remove their apparently unethical 
 character, will still have left in 5 : 4 and 1 1 traits 
 obnoxious to moral feeling, but its subjects are 
 congratulated on the superiority of its blessings 
 to those of this world. The contrast is between 
 external and spiritual good, and is exactly in 
 line with the antitheses of the new and old, ex- 
 ternal vs. spiritual morality, which Luke never- 
 theless does not contain. It is still more 
 
 * Synopt. Evang.y p. 76 f. f Op. fit., p. 53. 
 
126 Appendix A 
 
 distinctly in line with the contrast of worship : 
 the Pharisee, who worships to be seen of men, 
 and " has his reward," and the son of the King- 
 dom whose reward is from " thy Father that 
 seeth in secret." In the lecture attention is 
 called to the identity even in phraseology. 
 
 It is not here Matthew but Luke who writes 
 6 : 23, " Rejoice for great is your reward in 
 heaven ; " 24, " Woe to you rich, for ye have 
 received to the full {a.Trix iT€ ) yo ur consolation ; " 
 35, " And your reward shall be great." 
 
 The contrasting " woes " are also certainly 
 original, not merely because of the thought and 
 phraseology, as already suggested, but because 
 the balance of the discourse in all its other parts 
 between old and new, outward and inward, ma- 
 terial and spiritual, requires it. 
 
 Thirdly, Luke is correct in employing the 
 second person, to which even Matthew passes 
 over in 11 and 12. It does not follow because 
 no rich men were presumably present, that Jesus 
 did not apostrophize them, as in Lk. 6 : 24 ; for 
 in Lk. 10:13; J 3 : 34> 35 we have similar 
 instances, and in Jas. 5:1-6 a still closer par- 
 allel. The change to the third person is part of 
 
Appendix A 127 
 
 a process of generalization of the teaching in 
 Matthew of which we have now to speak. 
 
 The secondary character of the Matthsean 
 form is apparent (a) in the numerical arrange- 
 ment apparent throughout this gospel ; * (t>) in 
 the addition of explanatory clauses ; (c) in the 
 toning down of strong rhetorical figures toward 
 the commonplaces of catechetic instruction. 
 
 Under (a) we notice here that we have just 
 seven beatitudes, corresponding to the seven 
 (originally five) clauses of the Lord's Prayer, the 
 seven parables of ch. 13, and the seven woes of 
 ch. 23 ; for v. 5, whose position varies in the 
 /? text, is a mere scribal gloss, a marginal addi- 
 tion from Ps. 37:11, which has crept in after 
 v. 3 in some manuscripts, after v. 4. in others. 
 This threefold recurrence of groups of seven is, 
 therefore, doubtless the work of the compiler 
 (Matthew' 1 '), especially as he makes up in 
 chapters 8-9 a similar group of ten miracles. 
 
 (&) The addition of the clauses to TrvevfxaTi 
 
 (V. 3), KOLL Suj/WVTCS TT)V $LKCU.O<TVVr]V (v. 6), 
 
 \f/evS6fi€voL (v. n), tovs TTpb i'fjLwv (v. 12) tends 
 
 * See Hawkins, Horce Synoptictr, p. 132, and Holtz- 
 mann, Handkommentar, p. II. But cf. infra, p. 169. 
 
128 Appendix A 
 
 to adjust the meaning to the common view or 
 to remove difficulties. We cannot suppose that 
 though original, they were omitted by Luke. 
 Their editorial insertion by Matthew is perfectly 
 comprehensible. 
 
 (c) The general result of the changes from 
 second to third person, introduction of new 
 beatitudes (w. 7, 9, 10) commending all sorts 
 of virtues, explanatory additions to guard against 
 a non-ethical interpretation, tends to generalize 
 the teaching adapting the discourse to service as 
 a compendium of rules of right living. This 
 effaces the strong lines of the original thought, 
 as determined by the constant contrasts which 
 follow. It is characteristic of this evangelist 
 (Matthew 1 ") that he is considerate of ortho- 
 doxy, conforming inexact quotations to the letter 
 of scripture (Mt. 13:14-15, cf. Mk. 4:12; 
 19:18-19, cf. Mk. 10:19), and changing 
 Mark's plain fiam'kf.ia tov 6e.ov to the more rev- 
 erent (?) circumlocution fiaatXcia tW ovpavwv. 
 While it is no unreasonable supposition of O. 
 Holtzmann's that Jesus in this respect may have 
 followed the usage of his countrymen (cf. Lk. 
 15 : 21), Matthew '"'s practice in the sections he 
 
Appendix A 129 
 
 borrows from Mark makes it reasonable to regard 
 /Sao-tXeta to>v ovpavwv as secondary everywhere. 
 
 The result is for us an unavoidable adoption 
 of the Lucan form (three beatitudes and an 
 explanatory expansion, vv. 22-23, followed by 
 three woes in antithetic form) as the more 
 original. The exordium thus appears to be 
 expressive of the single thought : True blessed- 
 ness is not with the outwardly enviable, but the 
 inwardly, however wretched in men's eyes. As 
 usual, in such cases, the nearer we come to the 
 original the greater is the simplicity and self- 
 consistency of the thought. It answers the 
 question, Wherein lies the blessedness of the 
 kingdom ? not, What must be done to attain it? 
 
 The general superiority of the Lucan form 
 does not, of course, exclude occasional Matthaean 
 superiority in detail, as where Luke also inserts 
 in v. 21 twice, and in v. 25 twice (/? text once) 
 an explanatory vvv ; in v. 22 the clauses brav 
 
 (j.icrr)(Tw<nv v/xas Kal acpopicrwcnv vp.a<; and ei'tKfv i/xov 
 in V. 23, iv Uuvr) Trj 7/xe'pa, and yap and 01 Trarepes 
 auroiy both here and in v. 26 (a text). 
 
 For the discussion of these and similar details 
 see Appendix B. 
 
 K 
 
130 Appendix A 
 
 (3) The Two Preliminary Parables 
 
 Mt. 5: 13-16 = Mk. 9:50"; 4:21 =Lk. 14:34-35; 
 8:16= 11:33 
 
 The two parables setting forth (here) the 
 importance to the world of the disciples' faith- 
 fulness, are introduced by Matthew at this 
 point because of the beatitudes (taken as de- 
 scriptive of the true disciple). The admission 
 of the woes of course destroys this connection, 
 which was in reality fictitious, since the mean- 
 ing assigned by Matthew to both beatitudes and 
 parables, a meaning on which the connection 
 depends, is inexact. The context of the dis- 
 course itself accordingly excludes them, and as 
 Mark and Luke both give them elsewhere 
 (Luke gives the second in two places), it is 
 certain that they are really stray logia attached 
 by Matthew", or Matthew ili . 
 
 Of the parable of the Salt become Tasteless 
 (such is its real significance) in the Markan 
 setting we must say the same. Its only con- 
 nection with Mk. 9 : 49, 5o b is the bare word 
 " salt," which is used in quite a different meta- 
 phor both before and after. Mk. 9 : 49 would 
 seem to be a stray logion on the seasoning effect 
 
Appendix A 131 
 
 of persecution (cf. 2 Tim. 2 : 1, 3). In 5o b salt 
 is a metaphor for pungent criticism. Use your 
 powers of criticism on your own selves (em- 
 phatic ZavToh) j toward one another keep 
 peace (cf. Rom. 14:13). Luke's setting, as 
 Wendt has seen,* is correct. The parable is a 
 warning against weariness in well-doing drawn 
 from the experience of Palestinian housekeepers, 
 whose salt, having a large admixture of im- 
 purities in the shape of white, insoluble " salts," 
 when exposed to dampness disappeared, leaving 
 the tasteless and worthless residuum. The sense 
 is parallel to Mk. 4:17. While Luke's literary 
 setting is correct, the historical connection is 
 doubtless approximately Mark's ; for both forms 
 of the story in this gospel connect with Jesus' 
 prediction of his fate in Jerusalem a warning to 
 his disciples of the need to renounce all for the 
 kingdom. Mk. 8 : 31-33, 34-9 : i=Mk. 9 : 30- 
 
 3 2 > 43-5°- 
 
 Wendt also regards the reading ko.\6v ovv to 
 
 aAa9 as derived from Mk. 9 : 50, preferring the 
 
 Matthaean form v/xas e<rre to a\as tt/s y^s. It 
 
 would be well in that case to follow Wendt's 
 
 * Op. cit., p. 125. See below, Appendix C. 
 
132 Appendix A 
 
 own principle of the pairing of parables, and 
 follow Matthew to the further extent of adding 
 at least 5 : 14* and 16 v/acis tore to <f>u><: rot) 
 Ko&fJiov, ovrcos Xa/x^/aTU) kt\. 
 
 For the saying on hiding the lamp (or the 
 city on a hill) we have a choice of two other 
 connections, that of Mk. 4:21, followed by 
 Luke in 8 : 16, and that of Lk. n : 33. The 
 latter is clearly incorrect ; for the illustration of 
 the proper use of truth, to which the saying is 
 clearly adapted, has none but a superficial and 
 mnemonic connection with the warning to fol- 
 low the inward light as against pretentious 
 human authorities, Lk. 11:34-36. Mark's 
 setting, however, is not necessarily correct be- 
 cause Matthew's and Luke's are incorrect. In 
 fact the logion in Mark is appended along with 
 4:22 in a connection which is certainly not 
 original. Mk. 4 : 10-25 as a whole constitutes 
 an interruption to the context of 4 : 1-9, 26-34, 
 in which vv. n-12 area first interpolation* (the 
 agraphon (xvaT-qpiov ifxbv ifxol koli tois vtots tov 
 oUov fxov, Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 10:69, an( ^ 
 Clem. Horn. xix. 20, taken together with Is. 6 : 9 
 * See s.v. Gospels, Encycl. Bibl., p. 1 866. 
 
Appendix A 133 
 
 as employed in Rom. n : 8). The interpolator 
 takes rjpuTwv ras 7rapa/5oAas (properly to be 
 understood from v. 34) as if=8ia rt iv napa- 
 (3o\ai<; XaXeis aureus (Mt. 13 : 10). This inter- 
 polated " hard saying " on the " hiding of 
 Jesus' teaching " in the parables has then prob- 
 ably led to the attachment of the other logia in 
 21-25 by way of antidote. The most we can 
 say for the original setting of that on hiding the 
 lamp (city) is that it would seem to have been 
 an exhortation to the disciples to court rather 
 than fear publicity, perhaps that in which the 
 associated logion Mk. 4:22 appears in Mt. 10 : 
 26 f. 
 
 (4) The Higher Righteousness 
 
 Mt. 5 : 17-20 = Lk. 16: 17 + 
 
 The originality of 5 : 17, 20 needs no further 
 defence. The question regarding this section 
 of the Matthaean discourse concerns the two 
 logia of vv. 18-19, the former of which appears 
 also in Lk. 16 : 17. It here purports to explain 
 (yap) the TrXrjpuo-ai of v. 1 7. If correctly, the 
 most that can be said against the connection is 
 to declare w. 18-19 superfluous; if incorrectly, 
 
134 Appendix A 
 
 we must seek a better connection for the logion, 
 if not for its companion, v. 19, as well. 
 
 Most critics regard these two sayings on the 
 permanency of the law, and the relative value of 
 destructive and constructive reformation, as in- 
 terpolated. The fact that Luke gives the former 
 elsewhere is inconclusive, because Luke omits 
 for his own reasons the whole section, though 
 showing acquaintance with it. In fact his very 
 next logion (i6:i8 = Mt. 5:32), which he 
 makes to follow directly upon this, is certainly 
 part of the omitted material, and the Lucan 
 connection of both logia is most artificial 
 (Lk. 16:16, "The law and the prophets were 
 until John "). We must decide, therefore, on 
 internal evidence. 
 
 The language of Mt. 5 : 18 (ye'v^rai), even if 
 we allow no weight at all on this point to the 
 Lucan form (-rreo-eiv), certainly suggests that the 
 " fulfilment " meant by the evangelist who ap- 
 pends the saying to TrXrjpCxrai is not that of 
 renovation by broader and deeper interpreta- 
 tion, but in action, by obedience ; and we are 
 reminded that in 8 : 2-4 Matthew ii[ makes the 
 incident he takes from Mk. 1 : 40-45 follow 
 
Appendix A 135 
 
 immediately after the Sermon, in spite of the 
 absurdity then involved in the injunction of 
 secrecy (cf. Mt. 8 : i, and 4°), apparently to 
 illustrate how obediently Jesus " fulfilled " the 
 law.* But the antitheses which follow show 
 that such is not the meaning of the irXripCxrai 
 of v. 1 7, but rather " fulfilment " in exposition by 
 enlargement of the content. Moreover, it surely 
 was not Jesus' design to declare that the time 
 would come when every minutest prescription 
 of the Torah would be implicitly obeyed. It 
 is, however, a frequent assurance of Jesus to his 
 followers that the things concerning himself in 
 Moses and the prophets (" the law " in the 
 broader sense of Scripture) should have their 
 fulfilment. If reduced to conjecture for the 
 original connection of this legion, we shall do 
 far better, therefore, to take it in this sense 
 of " coming to pass," connecting it with the 
 
 * Compare the characteristic addition Mt. 3: 15, "It 
 becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." In other words, 
 the baptism of repentance is indeed meaningless in my 
 case and the relation of baptizer to baptized inappro- 
 priate, but as an act of righteousness, an p/>us operation, 
 we should go through it. An impossible sentiment in 
 the mouth of Jesus; cf. Mk. 2: 19. 
 
136 Appendix A 
 
 eschatological discourse, or perhaps regarding 
 it as simply a different version of Mk. 13:31. 
 The essential nature of the figure is identical 
 with Jer. 31 : 35-37, and it would seem probable 
 that Jesus employed it similarly. We might 
 even conjecture that in the original utterance 
 the form was not " my word," but, as in the 
 O. T. passages generally, " the word of the 
 Lord." In either case the thing absolutely 
 assured is the fulfilment of the " sure mercies 
 of David," and the establishment of the "new 
 covenant." 
 
 In 5 : 19 it is not apparent that we have 
 anything out of harmony with the remaining 
 context. That the principle is authentic is 
 demonstrable from the certainly historical 
 agraphon on the man working on the Sabbath 
 (Lk. 6:5/8 text), and from Rom. 14:13-23, 
 not to speak of the many instances in which 
 Jesus showed how one might " do and teach 
 the law " even while practising the larger 
 righteousness {e.g. Lk. 11 :4i). It is true that 
 the verse would not be missed if removed from 
 between 17 and 20; but if a genuine Xoyiov its 
 position here is at least admissible on the in- 
 
Appendix A 137 
 
 terpretation of Beyschlag.* The contrast of 
 Kcn-aAvo-cu and TrXrjpwo-ai in v. 17 would receive 
 thus an explanation in real harmony with the 
 antitheses which follow. To "relax" (Xvtrat, 
 cf. KaTakvval, v. 17) would be to show by ex- 
 ample and teaching that a commandment is 
 obsolete ; to " fulfil " would be to show by 
 example and teaching how to truly venerate the 
 past. Both are needful services, but one is 
 " least," the other " great." 
 
 Holtzmann'sf objections, fatal as they are 
 to v. 18, scarcely affect v. 19, and a separa- 
 tion seems really to be required by the differ- 
 ence in sense of yivrjrai ("come to pass") and 
 iroirjar) (" perform "). The most serious would 
 be the argument that v. 19 militates against 
 that very distinction of greater and lesser ele- 
 ments of the Law emphasized elsewhere in 
 the discourse, e.g. w. 23-24. But is it 
 
 * " Among these least commandments there is no mere 
 empty, vain husk without a kernel to be thrown away. 
 In each there is a divine thought, an imperishable idea, 
 which must come to its rights before the letter be allowed 
 to perish." New Test. Theol., I, p. no. 
 
 f New Test. Theol., I, p. 152. 
 
138 Appendix A 
 
 really the fact that the expression " one of 
 these least commandments " is opposed to the 
 distinction ? 
 
 On the clause ^ tovs ■npo^-qra.%, v. 17, see 
 Appendix B (2). 
 
 (5) First Antithesis, Murder vs. the Spirit of 
 
 Hatred 
 
 Mt. 5 : 21-26 = Lk. 12 : 57-59 
 
 The impropriety of the connection of the 
 warning to impenitent Israel to be reconciled 
 ere too late with its divine adversary, whose 
 impending judgment is to be read in the signs 
 of the times, Mt. 5 : 25-26 = Lk. 12:57-59, 
 with that on the superiority of reconciliation 
 (with a brother) to sacrifice, and with the 
 antitheses of the new righteousness generally, 
 is so manifest to every reader of the Lucan 
 context, that we need only refer to Appendix C, 
 vii, p. 247, so far as these verses are concerned. 
 But is the preceding logion, 5 : 23-24, on recon- 
 ciliation with a brother, rightly placed? 
 
 We have indeed no parallel report on author- 
 ity of which we might assign it a different con- 
 nection, but the connection with the illustrative 
 
Appendix A 139 
 
 antithesis is certainly of the loosest, whereas 
 the symmetry of structure of the whole dis- 
 course forbids the supposition of such digres- 
 sions. Jesus was giving illustrations of the 
 higher righteousness of the kingdom, as against 
 scribal casuistic ethics. Did he digress to illus- 
 trate the remotely connected principle of the 
 greater importance of humanity than ceremo- 
 nial? It is far more probable that the connec- 
 tion is owing to the evangelist, whose frequent 
 additions we have already had occasion to note. 
 From what context it may ultimately have been 
 derived is a more difficult question. We should 
 naturally think of Mt. 22 : 40 (cf. Mk. 12 : 33) \ 
 or perhaps better of Mt. 18 : 5-6, 10-14, as the 
 preceding context. If our logion were there 
 inserted, 18 : 15 ff. would follow appropriately.* 
 On the emended form of 5 : 22, conforming 
 to that of the second antithesis (vv. 27-28, 
 31-32), see Appendix B, and Journ. of Bib. 
 Lit., 1892, i, p. 131, " Note on Mt. 5 : 21-22," 
 by John P. Peters. 
 
 ♦The rule of discipline, Mt 18:16-17, cannot, in 
 present form, be genuine; but the underlying principle, 
 Win thy brother (v. 15), may. 
 
140 Appendix A 
 
 (6) Second Antithesis, Adultery vs. Impure 
 Thought 
 
 Mt. 5 : 27-32 = Mt. 18:6, 8-9 = Mk. 9 : 42-49 = Lk. 
 17:2 + Mt. 19: 9 = Mk. 10: io-ii = Lk. 16: 18 
 
 Wendt,* although recognizing the necessity 
 of removing from the Matthaean context of v. 39 
 the logion on the hand that causes stumbling, 
 as having no real relation to the antithesis of 
 purity of thought, vs. purity of action only, 
 thinks it needful to retain the logion (v. 29) 
 on the eye that causes stumbling, on the ground 
 that " Jesus adduces examples in most of the 
 other portions of this section, of how his com- 
 mands surpass the earlier." But we have 
 already had occasion to remove vv. 23-24 to 
 which reference appears to be made, so that 
 this argument is inverted. Moreover, the at- 
 tempt to divide the saying on sacrificing that 
 which is most precious if it become an obstacle 
 to salvation into two utterances on separate 
 occasions is like attributing to different poems 
 the two halves of any familiar stanza. 
 
 One must then not only consider the strophe 
 and antistrophe of Mt. 5 : 29 and 30 to be the 
 * Op. cit., p. 59. 
 
Appendix A 141 
 
 work of the evangelist, or of some predecessor 
 in the field ; but must also consider that the 
 association of the two in Mk. 9 : 43-48 is the 
 result of a second independent attempt to com- 
 bine in poetic form these same two independent 
 logia. And over and above this we have the 
 testimony of Matthew himself in 18 : 6-9, where 
 he copies Mk. 9 : 42-47, to this more original 
 form, wherein three members, hand, foot, and 
 eye, were used as examples. 
 
 Accordingly, we have here to do with an inde- 
 pendent logion, somewhat abridged in Mt. 18 : 
 8-9 from the highly rhetorical form of Mark, 
 with threefold strophe and thrice recurrent 
 refrain fiX-qOrjvai cis yUwav, and still further 
 abridged in Mt. 5 : 29-30. The examples of 
 similar twofold or threefold strophic utterance 
 elsewhere in Jesus' teaching (Mt. 6 : 1-18 ; n : 
 7-10, 20-24) strongly support the originality of 
 the Markan form. But if so we shall be com- 
 pelled to distinguish between Matthew"', who 
 has incorporated Mk. 9 : 42-47 in Mt. 18 : 6-9, 
 and Matthew", who inserts it in 5 : 29-30.* 
 
 * See my Introd. to N. T. Lit., p. 202, and Soltau, 
 Eine L'ucke der Synoptischen Forsclutng, 1900. 
 
142 Appendix A 
 
 For (a) while it is not at all inconceivable that 
 the duplication should escape notice if the logion 
 had already been incorporated by an earlier hand 
 in a large section, such as the Sermon on the 
 Mount, it is less probable that the same editor 
 would deliberately insert it twice, not without 
 considerable change of form. Accordingly, the 
 incorporation of 5 : 29-30 into its present con- 
 text will have preceded the taking up of the 
 discourse as a whole, and of Mk. 9 : 33-50 into 
 our Matthew. Moreover, (b) Matthew'', in 5 : 
 29-30, shows decided appreciation of strophic 
 form, and while he destroys the threefold 
 strophe of Mark, is able to produce a twofold 
 strophe of artistic type. But Matthew"', as we 
 have seen, makes havoc of this artistic structure 
 by his additions, and can hardly have had 
 appreciation for rhetorical form. 
 
 But is it possible to form a reasonable con- 
 jecture as to the original connection of the 
 logion ? 
 
 Certainly not from the preceding context of 
 Mark. Here 9 : 43-48 is appended to the 
 warning against " stumbling " (aKavSaXt^eiv) a 
 " little one," simply because of the mnemonic 
 
Appendix A 143 
 
 word o-Kav&iAt£«v. Inner connection there is 
 none whatever. Moreover, the warning against 
 stumbling the "little ones that believe," by 
 which, as we may easily see from the form of 
 the logion in Clem. Rom. xlvi, 8 (Oval to> av- 
 6p<*>Trii) Ifceuw) • KaXov rjv avTw d ovk eyevvrjOr) 77 Ira 
 Tuiv €kXcktu)v fiov crKavSaAicrai ktX.), are not 
 meant children, but those weak in the faith, is 
 attached by the merest mnemonic relation to 
 the saying, Mk. 9: 37, 41, about "receiving a 
 little chiW 1 Mk. 9 : 33-50 is thus seen to be, 
 for the most part, a mere agglomeration of stray 
 logia ; for we have seen above how purely fic- 
 titious is the connection of the sayings about 
 salt and fire, 9 : 49-50. 
 
 If, then, we dissolve the fictitious connection 
 between the logion on Causing the Weak to 
 Stumble, and that on Stopping at no Sacrifice 
 for Salvation, we have for the former the evidence 
 of both Matthew and Luke that it came from the 
 connection of the teaching concerning Duty 
 toward those " who are of the Household of the 
 Faith" (10-14, 15, 21-35), which is given very 
 briefly indeed in Lk. 1 7 : 1-4, but forms the basis 
 of the entire chapter Mt. 18, though certain 
 
144 Appendix A 
 
 intrusive elements here are derived from Mark, 
 as we have seen in the case of vv. 8-9, and cer- 
 tain others, as vv. 16-20, from other sources.* 
 
 But where place the logion on stopping at no 
 sacrifice for salvation. Here Luke deserts us 
 entirely, having absolutely no trace of the saying, 
 though several closely related warnings (e.g. 13 : 
 22-25) '} an d Matthew, as we have seen, vacil- 
 lated between two contexts, neither of which can 
 be right. We have one resort left, the succeed- 
 ing context in Mark. It is true that v. 4o b is 
 shown by the earlier texts to be a mere gloss, 
 and even 49 s has much the same character of an 
 addendum to v. 48 suggested by the recurrence 
 of the word irvp. But, however it may be with 
 these four words, 7ras yap irvpl akiaO-qcrtTaL, 50% 
 
 * For brevity's sake we are compelled to omit from 
 Appendix C this discourse on Duty to Members of the 
 Household of Faith, which Reville has perceived to be 
 one of the seven principal discourses of our first gospel, 
 (i.) the New Law, 5: 3-7: 27; (ii.) Apostolic Instruc- 
 tions, 9: 37-38; 10: 5-16, 33-42; (iii.) Foes, 11 : 7-19, 
 21-30; 12: 24-25, 28, 30, 37-39; (iv.) Parables of the 
 Kingdom, 13: 1-52; (v.) Relationships within the King- 
 dom, 18: 2-7, 10-23; 2 ° : I— 16; 21: 23-27; 22: 1-6, 
 8-14; (vi.) Woes, 23; (vii.) Eschatology, 24: 11-12, 
 26-28,37-51; 25. 
 
Appendix A 145 
 
 as we have seen, is a warning against faint-heart- 
 edness supported by reference to the destruction 
 of worthless material. In Lk. 14 : 34 it follows 
 upon the two parables on counting the cost, 
 which end, "So, therefore, whosoever he be 
 that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot 
 be my disciple." Luke has employed this con- 
 text of 14 : 25-35 to forestall a misuse of the 
 parable of the great supper, 14 : 15-24, and we 
 cannot say what originally came before it ; very 
 possibly the answer " Strive to enter in," to the 
 question, "Lord, are there few that be saved?" 
 Lk. 13 : 22-30. But enough that Mark's con- 
 nection of the warning, Stop at no Sacrifice, with 
 that of the Tasteless Salt is vindicated. We 
 have in Lk. 14 : 25-35 a reasonable context, 
 even if we do not add Lk. 13 : 22-30. Both 
 belong to the period when Jesus' followers, hav- 
 ing forsaken all (Mk. 10: 28), are on their way 
 to the great crisis in Jerusalem. 
 
 On the readings of Mt. 5 : 32 ( = Mk. 10: 
 io-i2 = Mt. 19: Q = Lk. 16; iS) and of the 
 succeeding antitheses of duty toward man, 
 Mt. 5:33-48, 7:i2 = Lk. 6:27-36+, see 
 Appendix B (4), (5), and (6). 
 
146 Appendix A 
 
 (7) The Three Antitheses of Duty toward God 
 Mt. 6: i-l8 = Mk. II : 25, Lk. 11 : 1-4 
 
 Further argument is needless to show that the 
 true occasion for the Lord's Prayer is that given 
 by Luke, and although no parallel to Mt. 6 : 7-8 
 appears, no one is at a loss to understand the 
 omission by our Gentile evangelist. Accord- 
 ingly, since the symmetry of the antitheses is no 
 less strongly opposed to their presence in the 
 Matthaean connection, than the integrity of the 
 thought, which forbids digressions into general 
 instruction on how to pray acceptably, we ex- 
 clude the whole passage, w. 7-15, assigning 
 7 (8 duplicates 6 : 32 and is redactional), 9-13 
 (in the simpler fivefold Lucan form)* to the 
 Lucan discourse on Prayer, f 
 
 But Lk. 18 : 1-8, although placed by our 
 evangelist at the end of an eschatological section 
 17 : 20-37, because, as he rightly perceives, the 
 widow who importunately calls for justice is the 
 widowed 'daughter of Zion ' (cf. v. 7) has its 
 own explanatory introduction (v. 1) which 
 clearly and, as would seem, correctly stated its 
 
 * See Lecture, p. 79. t See Appendix C, I, p. 183. 
 
Appendix A 147 
 
 didactic intent ; and this connects the parable 
 by closer ties with Lk. n : 1-13. Its subject is 
 identical : Persistence in Prayer. The mere 
 fact that its illustration is in line with 17 : 20-37 
 is not enough to justify divorce from the dis- 
 course on Prayer. As to date the most that 
 can be said is that the occasion of the discourse 
 seems to be later than the choice of the Twelve, 
 Mk. 3:7-12, perhaps later than the death of 
 the Baptist ; but earlier than the crisis in Gali- 
 lee, Mk. 7 : 1-24, after which general religious 
 teaching was less in the minds of the disciples 
 than the special problems of the immediate sit- 
 uation. 
 
 But the saying on forgiveness, 14-15, has 
 only a fortuitous relation to the teachings on 
 prayer. To classify it with these is as if one 
 should place the saying on Reconciliation being 
 better than Sacrifice, Mt. 5 : 24, in the category 
 of teachings regarding true sacrifice. In fact 
 the two just named are companion utterances, 
 as will be seen as soon as we bring Mt. 6 : 14-15 
 into its true connection among the teachings on 
 Duty to those who are of the Household of the 
 Faith, Reconciliation and Forgiveness, in Mt. 18. 
 
448 Appendix A 
 
 For the connection in Mark is a typical ex- 
 ample of mere mnemonic association, so com- 
 mon in the occasional logia of our second 
 gospel, as if sayings attached on the margin had 
 become incorporated.* In fact the Markan 
 connection (/cat orav arr]KVTt irpocrev^o/xtvoi) 
 strongly suggests derivation from Matthew " or 
 Matthew 1 ". In Mt. 18, the logion 6 : 14-15 
 will have formed the conclusion of the parable 
 on forgiveness, 18 : 21-35. 
 
 (8) Earthly against Heavenly Wealth 
 
 Mt. 6:i9-34 = Lk. 12:13-34; 11:34-35; 16:1-9, «- 
 13. 19-25 
 Additional argument to prove the correctness 
 of Luke's setting, as against Matthew's, for this 
 
 *The whole of Mk. 11 : 20-25 * s ma de U P of such 
 debris. The logion 22-24 comes from the connection 
 Mt. 17: 19-20 where its sense is as true to the princi- 
 ples of Jesus as in that of Mk. II : 20-21 it would be 
 false. So of 25 where forgiveness is not inculcated as a 
 means of getting our prayers answered. Verses 20-21 
 form simply an editorial link to connect with II : 12-14, 
 which the evangelist fails to understand as symbolic 
 action of the prophetic type, and thus assumes to re- 
 quire an actual and visible effect. The incident of the 
 fig tree is complete in 11:12-14"; cf. Mt. 21:18-22 
 (N.B. irapaxpTjlJ-ay 
 
Appendix A 149 
 
 great discourse as a whole will be needless for 
 those who admit the principles of criticism and 
 wasted on those who do not. For the discourse 
 as a whole, in its larger Lucan connection, we 
 refer the reader to Appendix C, II, p. 186. 
 
 But the two logia on Single-mindedness (?) 
 and Serving two Masters, Mt. 6 : 22-24, do not 
 occur in the discourse on Earthly vs. Heavenly 
 Wealth, Lk. 12 : 13-34, but elsewhere in Luke, 
 the former in connection with Jesus' defence 
 against the blasphemy of the scribes from 
 Jerusalem, Lk. n : 14-36, the latter in con- 
 nection with an independent discourse on wealth 
 and what it can and cannot do, in Lk. 16. 
 Apart from the inappropriateness of the whole 
 teaching in a discourse on the New Righteous- 
 ness, we have two reasons for thinking the set- 
 ting of Luke correct, at least for Mt. 6 : 22-23. 
 (a) It is difficult to discover in it any relation 
 to the context (earthly vs. heavenly riches) 
 unless taken as contrasting with v. 24, in the 
 sense : Make the heavenly wealth the undi- 
 vided object of your pursuit. Do not divide 
 your service between it and Mammon. In 
 Matthew's conception the " single eye," there- 
 
150 Appendix A 
 
 fore, is that of the servant of Ps. 123 : 2, un- 
 swervingly fixed on the master from whom the 
 reward is to come. But while such a con- 
 ception may very well have led to the insertion 
 of both logia here, it certainly fails to do justice 
 to the saying on the "lamp of the body," if 
 indeed the general teaching, Make the heavenly 
 reward your undivided object, be not on general 
 principles too meretricious to accord with the 
 unselfish teachings of Jesus (cf. Mk. 8 : 35, and 
 parallels). In this interpretation everything 
 turns on the word dirXovs, as against the 8val 
 Kvpiois of v. 24, " single " vs. " double " service. 
 But if Matthew's were the original meaning, the 
 contrasting adjective in the negative half of the 
 logion, v. 23, describing the eye as it must not 
 be, should not be irovrjpos. Double sight may 
 not be a correct antithesis on account of the 
 " doubleness " of normal sight, but we should at 
 least expect some such epithet as "wandering" 
 or " inconstant." The use of rcovr\p6^ by both 
 authorities indicates that the "simplicity" 
 meant is not singleness vs. duality, but singleness 
 in the sense of honesty ; integrity vs. duplicity. 
 Moreover, the condition of inward light or dark- 
 
Appendix A 151 
 
 ness is not what we should expect where the 
 object sought is not clearness of vision, but 
 heavenly reward. It is in the Lucan connection, 
 Blind Leaders vs. the Inward Guidance, that it 
 becomes appropriate to say : Inward light is 
 given to those who preserve integrity of mind. 
 The true sense of the saying, accordingly, is 
 that which it has in the context of Lk. n : 
 
 2 9-3 2 > 34~3 6 - 
 We have indeed a difficult problem in the 
 
 disentanglement from the two accounts of Mat- 
 thew (Mt. 9 : 32-34 ; 12 : 22-45, an d 16 '• 1-12), 
 two of Mark (Mk. 3 : 22-30; 8 : 11-21, and 
 7 : 1-23), one of Luke (Lk. n : 14-54; 
 12 : 1, 10), and two of John (Jn. 6 : 30 ff. con- 
 nected with 9 : 40 ff.) of the great philippic of 
 Jesus in Capernaum against the scribes and 
 Pharisees. But of one thing we may be fairly 
 certain, the saying on the lamp of the body vs. 
 the inward light, was uttered, as we learn from 
 Lk. n : 29-32, 34-36, in rebuke of the "evil 
 and adulterous " demand for a sign from heaven, 
 and the " simplicity " of eye on which inward 
 illumination is conditioned, is not that of the 
 servant intent on his reward, but of him who 
 
152 Appendix A 
 
 seeks the right path for himself or others. It is 
 the simplicity of the childlike and teachable 
 spirit, because of which Jesus could thank the 
 Father that though hidden from the wise and 
 prudent, his gospel was revealed unto babes. It 
 is integrity of mind, as opposed to the duplicity 
 of the "hypocritical" scribes and Pharisees, 
 who, because they deemed their own religious 
 leadership to be threatened by the new prophet, 
 had covertly (Mt. 12:25) given currency to 
 their blasphemous verdict, "He casteth out 
 devils by Beelzebub," then queried why Jesus 
 and the Twelve kept not " the tradition of the 
 elders," and finally opposed Jesus' preaching of 
 warning against impending judgment with the 
 demand of " a sign from heaven." 
 
 For (6) that the "evil eye" which is darkened, 
 is that of the "blind Pharisee," and blinder 
 scribe who assumes to "lead the blind," not that 
 of him who merely is divided in his service, is 
 also suggested by Mark's narrative of this mo- 
 mentous encounter (Mk. 7: 1-23), where, after 
 explaining wherein real defilement consists, we 
 have enumerated among the faults of those who 
 outwardly are clean, but inwardly full of all 
 
Appendix A 153 
 
 uncleanness, the " evil eye " and " blasphemy " 
 that had just been shown by " the scribes who 
 came down from Jerusalem." 
 
 If thus we are driven to separate Mt. 6:22- 
 23 from v. 24, placing the former with Luke in 
 the Denunciation at Capernaum, we may per- 
 haps effect compensation as regards v. 24. The 
 saying on Simplicity of Heart, taken in the 
 sense of Singleness of Service, has clearly been 
 drawn in to the discourse on the Rewards of 
 Heaven by that on Divided Service, Mt. 6 : 24 
 = Lk. 16 : 13. How then came the logion on 
 serving God and Mammon to be inserted here? 
 Manifestly not because of the mere Sval Kuptois, 
 since it was not here. But bring the saying 
 into relation with its larger connection of Lk. 
 16 : 1-13, 14-15, 19-25, and it becomes intel- 
 ligible. It is true the connection of the logia in 
 Lk. 16 : 10-13 appears somewhat broken, v. 10 
 introducing possibly a foreign element.* 
 
 Yet there is at least no incompatibility be- 
 tween v. 13 and 1-9, n-12 ; for the warning of 
 the parable, "Use fleeting wealth as a means to 
 
 * Perhaps the original refrain answering to Lk. 19:17 
 = Mt. 25 : 23, which will have stood in place of 19 : 27. 
 
154 Appendix A 
 
 higher ends while it is in your hands," is not 
 remote from the teaching, " Beware lest you 
 allow it to become an end in itself in rivalry 
 with God." 
 
 But here appears an affinity between the logion 
 on divided service and the discourse on heavenly 
 wealth which quite disappears in the Matthaean 
 form. The wealth ((mfifuHv) of unrighteousness, 
 belonging as it does to the Prince of this world 
 (Lk. 4:6)," faileth " (eicXwrei, Lk. 16 : 9). The 
 specified characteristic of the heavenly treasure 
 is that it does 710 1 fail (Mt. 6 : 19-20). 
 
 How then comes Matthew'" to insert into 
 the discourse on the " Treasure in heaven that 
 faileth not," a verse which in the larger connec- 
 tion of Lk. 16 : 1— 13 we find attached to a par- 
 able on the use of " the mammon that belongs 
 to unrighteousness," which though it " fails" can 
 be made a means to " eternal habitations " 
 (cuwvtovs crKT/vas) ; and yet himself quite over- 
 look this relation and substitute a fictitious one? 
 Must it not be that v. 24 (save for what belongs 
 to it in Lk. 16:1-9 (10-12?)) is, after all, 
 substantially in right relation to Mt. 6:19-21? 
 Will it not have been because Matthew"' 
 
Appendix A 155 
 
 found the verse {plus somewhat more too di- 
 verse from his theme of the heavenly reward to 
 be utilized) in this connection, that he placed 
 it here, inserting before it 6 : 22-23 t0 f° rm ^ e 
 contrast Single vs. Divided Service ? But if so, 
 then in Luke also there has been to some extent 
 a separation of connected material by the inser- 
 tion of other less directly related. For the great 
 discourse on the abiding heavenly wealth in Lk. 
 12 : 13-34, part of which is adopted in Mt. 
 6 : 19-34, is separated from that on How to use 
 the fleeting Wealth of the World, Lk. 16 : 1-13, 
 by miscellaneous material extending from 1 2 : 35 
 to the end of chapter 15. The parable of the 
 rich man and Lazarus, to which some hand has 
 appended a totally foreign addition * in vv. 26- 
 31, is a warning against judgment by outward 
 appearance, and therefore cannot tolerate the 
 intervention of the three stray logia, w. 16-18, 
 two of which we have already located elsewhere, 
 between it and v. 15, which it serves to illustrate. 
 The originality of the editorial connection, v. 14, 
 
 * See my article, "The Transfiguration Story," in 
 Am.Journ. of Theol, April, 1902; and Julicher, Gleich- 
 nissreden, ad loc. 
 
156 Appendix A 
 
 has indeed been doubted on the ground that 
 avarice was not a characteristic sin of the Phari- 
 sees. But the genuineness of $ika.p^/vpoi iirdp- 
 Xovtcs may be questioned without rejecting the 
 whole verse. Therefore, until more decisive evi- 
 dence appears against our evangelist's historical 
 settings than we have yet found, we must regard 
 14-15, 19-25 as a unit, the conclusion of the 
 great discourse on Earthly vs. Heavenly Wealth, 
 Lk. 12 : 13-34, 16 : 1-9, 11-13. 
 
 (9) How the New Standard of Righteousness 
 should be applied 
 
 (1) To self, not others, Mt. 7 : 1-27 + = Lk. 6: 37-49 + 
 
 The Application of the great discourse on the 
 Higher Righteousness falls naturally into three 
 divisions. (1) It is a standard for self-correc- 
 tion, not for censoriousness ; * (2) the refor- 
 
 * In this connection it is worth while to note the 
 concluding instructions of Paul to the rrvev/jLariKoi (lead- 
 ers of the church) in (ialatia. They are to restore the 
 erring in a spirit of meekness looking to themselves lest 
 they also be tempted. It is somewhat significant that 
 this echo of the concluding section of the Discourse on 
 the New Law should be inculcated by Paul as a" ful- 
 filling of the law of Christ," Gal. 6: 1-4. 
 
Appendix A 157 
 
 mation must be from the root, not superficial ; 
 (3) deeds not words will tell. 
 
 Of these Luke preserves only (2) and (3) in- 
 tact. He employs (1) as he employs elements 
 from the antithesis on Retaliation (Lk. 6 : 29, 30, 
 34, 35 = Mt. 5 : 40-42) to fill out the reduced 
 dimensions of that statement of the Higher 
 Righteousness in exclusively affirmative form, 
 6 : 27-38, which he substitutes for the antithe- 
 ses as a whole. Such at least would seem to be 
 the more probable explanation of the connec- 
 tion of 37-38* with the preceding verses. For 
 while they appear to offer a motive for the dis- 
 interested goodness inculcated, namely, " kind- 
 ness will breed kindness," the very suggestion of 
 such a motive is more or less incongruous with 
 the commendation of purely disinterested good- 
 ness. At least the level of the sublime saying, 
 vv. 35-36, wherein true goodness is commended 
 as the imitation of Him who gives without the 
 possibility of return, is hardly maintained if we 
 add, " For men will do as much again for you," 
 Lk. 6:37, 38% must therefore be derived from 
 another context, possibly that of Mt. 18, for the 
 duty inculcated in v. 37 is forgiveness. 
 
158 Appendix A 
 
 Again the two logia, Lk. 6 : 39-40, have cer- 
 tainly a fictitious connection. As the paragraph 
 stands the sense must be, " Beware of assuming 
 to guide when not yourself enlightened ; the 
 result will be that the pupil becomes as his 
 teacher." To this then is subjoined the saying 
 on removing a splinter from a brother's eye. 
 But it can hardly be admitted that Jesus should 
 have applied to any disciple of his own, however 
 overhasty to assume the functions of a teacher, 
 the epithet of " blind guide " which he applied 
 in withering denunciation to the scribes. More- 
 over, we cannot be mistaken as to the sense of 
 Mt. 7 : 3-5 = Lk. 6 : 41-42. Both witnesses 
 agree in placing it here, and the logion itself 
 clearly shows that it is not so much a warning 
 against assuming to teach without adequate 
 preparation, as a warning against assuming to 
 judge. We must, therefore, follow Matthew in 
 excluding these logia, Lk. 6 : 37 bc , 38% 39, 40. 
 We have, indeed, no parallel elsewhere to 37 bc , 
 38% though kindred teachings are not wanting 
 (cf. Mt. 18 : 23-35 ; Lk. 7 : 36-50 ; Jn. 7:55- 
 8:11 — originally " Lucan"), so that at best we 
 can give it but a very loose connection. But 
 
Appendix A 159 
 
 6 : 39 is a parallel to Mt. 15 : 14, and 6 : 40 to 
 Mt. 10:24-25. In both cases the Matthsean 
 setting is preferable and is supported by the 
 testimony of John (6 : 39 = Jn. 9 : 40-41 ; 6 : 40 
 = Jn. 13:16; 15:20). The two verses are 
 not quite in harmony with the context, which is 
 not a warning against ambition to be teachers, 
 but against the fault-finding spirit. Thus in Luke 
 the sayings have the appearance of logia attached 
 from floating tradition.* In Mt. 15 : 14 and 
 10 : 24-25 they give their true sense. 
 
 Per contra, Matthew's insertion of 7 : 6 can 
 be accounted for only by the evangelist's desire 
 to warn against misdirected zeal in applying 
 gospel truth, but is too remote from the real 
 subject to be authentic in the connection. If 
 genuine, as we have no need to doubt, it formed, 
 perhaps, a fragment, orally preserved, of the 
 directions to the Twelve when sent to preach the 
 kingdom, Mt. 10: 14-15. The rhetorical form 
 is, of course, a chiasmus, " lest they (the swine) 
 tread them (the pearls) under foot, and they 
 (the dogs) turn and rend you." It is safer to 
 
 * Cf. Wendt, op. cit., p. 65, and Weiss, Matthausev., 
 p. 206. 
 
160 Appendix A 
 
 follow the actual precedent of Mt. 15 : 26 ( = 
 Mk. 7:27; cf. 15:5) than to reason on a priori 
 grounds that " Jesus cannot have been unwilling 
 his gospel should be preached to any class," and 
 connect the saying (so O. Holtzmann) with Mt. 
 16:20. The connection of the second sending 
 of the Twelve, Mt. 10 : 16-42, however, seems 
 more probable than that of Mt. 10 : 1-15. The 
 dogs and swine will then be, not heathen gen- 
 erally, but persecutors. 
 
 Why the greater part of the discourse on 
 Prayer, Lk. n : 1-13, not already taken up in 
 Mt. 6:9-13, should be inserted next by 
 Matthew iU in 7 : 7-1 1, is hard to say. Connec- 
 tion of thought is undiscoverable. Perhaps the 
 need of finding room somewhere for such indis- 
 pensable teaching, and the general character the 
 discourse assumes in our evangelist's mind, was 
 reason enough for throwing it in here. Defence 
 of the Lucan connection is superfluous.* 
 
 So also with 7:12 which Luke gives correctly 
 both as to place and form. Verse 1 2 b is an addi- 
 tion (cf. Lk. 6:31) from Mt. 22 : 40, no doubt 
 from the hand which, by means of a similar addi- 
 * See Appendix C, I. 
 
Appendix A 161 
 
 tion in 5 : 1 7, changes the sense to a more gen- 
 eral adaptation of the discourse. The summary 
 is in place, as Wendt has seen, after the fourth 
 ethical antithesis, just before the comprehensive 
 fifth. 
 
 ( i o ) Radical Reformation 
 
 Mt. 7 : 13-20 = Lk. 6 : 43-45 i *3- 24-27 + 
 A more difficult problem confronts us in para- 
 graph ( 2 ). According to Wendt the leitmotif of 
 the sections (1) Mt. 6 : 1-6, 16-18, (2) 7 : 1-5, 
 (3) i5 -I 9> is "the hypocritical zeal for righteous- 
 ness" of which one form is (1) outward show in 
 acts of piety ; another (2) censoriousness toward 
 others with blindness to one's own faults ; a third 
 (3) our present paragraph, ambition to be 
 teachers. Accordingly, his explanation of the 
 employment of the logion, 7 : 13-14 = Lk. 13 : 
 24, as an introduction to the paragraph 15-20, 
 is as follows : Matthew m , intending to avail him- 
 self of part of the logion in 7 : 22-23 = Lk. 13 : 
 26-27, an d wishing to preserve the rest, em- 
 ployed it in this place for lack of a better. It 
 is, indeed, well-nigh as hard to see a real con- 
 nection of thought between the logion and its 
 context here, as easy to see it in its Lucan con- 
 
 M 
 
162 Appendix A 
 
 text (Lk. 13:22-30). Now the figure of the 
 two gates and two ways is a common one in 
 antiquity, both Jewish and classic* In answer 
 to the question (Lk. 13 : 23), "Lord, are there 
 few that be saved? " it comes in appropriately in 
 connection with the sayings (here rigidly con- 
 densed ; cf. Mt. 24:37-25:46 and 8:11) on 
 exclusion of those who, in their own estimation, 
 are entitled to a place in the kingdom. The 
 Lucan setting is, therefore, correct. But it is 
 hard to see why even such a compiler as Matthew 
 should give it room in a warning against " ambi- 
 tion to teach." If, however, the paragraph is 
 really on Radical Reformation, the saying has a 
 sufficient degree of appropriateness here to 
 account for its insertion. 
 
 Now in the Lucan version of the discourse 
 (Lk. 6:43-45) there can be no question that 
 radical reformation is in fact the sense. Prophets 
 or teachers are not mentioned. The two kinds 
 of trees are compared respectively to the good 
 and bad man, each of whom manifests in deed 
 (and word ?) his real nature. Only the appended 
 
 * Test, of Abraham, and Johannes ben Zakkai (Bet: 
 28 b ); also in the Tablet of Kebes. 
 
Appendix A I63 
 
 clause 45 b , «* yap 7re/3io-<rev/xaTos KapStas AaAei to 
 o-To/xa atrroS suggests anything like the Matthaean 
 sense, and this does not appear in Matthew's 
 version. In fact, it has much the appearance of 
 a scribal addition from Mt. 1 2 : 34. But Mt. 
 12:33-35 forms a doublet to 7:16-18, this 
 time taking the form of Lk. 6 : 43-45, so that 
 here Matthew witnesses against himself. What 
 then is the solution of the puzzle ? The intrinsic 
 sense of the logia themselves (for there are two, 
 one on judging pretended teachers by their 
 fruits, 7 : 15-17, 20, the other on reforming men 
 in their nature to secure right action, Lk. 6 : 43, 
 45) will give us the key. The saying on the 
 good tree vs. the rotten has really quite a differ- 
 ent bearing from that on plucking grapes from 
 thorns and figs from thistles. The first teaches 
 the indispensableness of a sound nature, the 
 second applies a common-sense rule to the dis- 
 crimination of the worthy from the unworthy 
 leader. Now it is only the former which has 
 proper relation to the Sermon on the Mount, so 
 that both 45 b and v. 44 (= Mt. 7:16) are alien 
 to this context. But how have they found their 
 way hither, since in Luke the context has no 
 
164 Appendix A 
 
 reference to the detection of false leaders? 
 Only the confusion of Mt. 7 : 15-20 with Mt. 
 12:33-35 can explain it. Mt. 7:15, 16, 20 
 and 12 : 34 belong elsewhere.* Jesus undoubt- 
 edly warned his disciples against the wolves in 
 sheep's clothing, and gave them this principle of 
 discrimination, "Men gather not grapes from 
 thorns nor figs from thistles ; " but not at this 
 time. The place of this saying is more probably 
 among the warnings for the future of the church, 
 given when Jesus was preparing the Twelve for 
 his impending fate. We are reminded of Mt. 
 24 : 1 1-12 ; but the teachers here spoken of are 
 not the special " false prophets " of eschatology, 
 but the " grievous wolves " of Acts 20 : 29. | A 
 better connection is the section on teachers in 
 the church, Mt. 23 : 1-12. It is the mention of 
 tree and fruit which belongs between the para- 
 graph on Self-judging and on Deeds not Words. 
 Matthew may have considered that the judgment 
 which in self-defence we are compelled to exer- 
 cise upon those who assume to direct us, formed 
 
 * See Appendix C, p. 256. 
 
 t See, however, Resch, Agrapha, Par. 1 10 and cf. 
 Aidaxv J 6: 3. 
 
Appendix A 165 
 
 an appropriate exception to follow after the 
 warning, "Judge not"; and combined the two 
 sayings on fruit-bearing as the test of char- 
 acter. But this combination was antecedent to 
 Matthew '", (a) because the connection is with 
 7 : 1-5 and is interrupted by vv. 6-14 ; and (b) 
 because it has affected Lk. 6 : 43-45, and Luke 
 shows no acquaintance with Matthew '". Mt. 
 7 : 17 is, therefore, in the nature of an editorial 
 link. 
 
 Finally, as between the Lucan and Matthsean 
 setting for Lk. 6 : 43, 45 = Mt. 12 : 33, 35, it is 
 easy to see that Luke's is correct, for Mt. 7:18 
 cannot stand alone, but requires this teach- 
 ing to follow it. On the other hand, Jesus as- 
 suredly did not address the disciples on whom 
 he had just pronounced the blessings of the 
 kingdom as a " generation of vipers," yewrjfxaTa 
 e^iSvoif . Mt. 1 2 : 34, if not simply compounded 
 of Mt. 3 : 7 and the proverb eV TrepLo-aevixaTos 
 KapSias XaXet to arofxa, belongs in the Denunci- 
 ation of Scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 12 : 22-45 
 and parallels), and is responsible for the dis- 
 placement of w. 33 and 35. In compensation 
 Matthew 1 ' 1 appends in 7:19-20 a doublet of 
 
166 Appendix A 
 
 3 : 10, and a repetition of v. i6 a . In this para- 
 graph, accordingly, it is substantially the Lucan 
 form which we must follow, omitting 44 and 45 b . 
 
 (11) Deeds not Words 
 
 Mt. 7: 21-27 = Lk. 6: 46-49, 13 : 26, 27 
 
 Wendt's observation that Mt. 7 : 22-23 ^ as 
 been borrowed from the Lucan context is cer- 
 tainly correct. Warnings against exclusion in 
 the day of judgment are in place in that escha- 
 tological section of Luke, to which we have 
 already assigned the counsel to seek timely 
 reconciliation with the great Plaintiff; they 
 have slight relation to a context on proper use 
 of the new standard of righteousness. But over 
 and above this it is inconceivable that Jesus at 
 this period of his ministry, before his Messianic 
 claims had been broached, should have openly 
 referred to himself as judge at the final assize. 
 Accordingly we must recognize that while the 
 substance of Mt. 7:21 remains, on the testi- 
 mony of Lk. 6 : 46, and because the proposition 
 in illustration of which the parable, vv. 24-27 
 (= Lk. 6:47-49), is uttered requires to be 
 stated, its form has been altered to agree with 
 
Appendix A 167 
 
 the eschatological logion which follows in v. 22 
 (ipoixnv . . . Kvpu, Kvpit ; cf. Mt. 25 : 11, 37, 
 44). Mt. 12 : 50 suggests the form of the last 
 half of the verse. The Lucan form, 6 : 46, 
 agrees with the succeeding context (dxoiW . . . 
 teal 7roiu)v), and must accordingly represent the 
 original.* 
 
 (12) The Colophon and Succeeding Events 
 
 Mt. 7: 28-29; 8 : 1-13 = Lk. 7:1; 5 : 12-16; 7: 2-10 
 
 A comparison of the concluding remark by 
 which each evangelist Matthew and Luke de- 
 scribes the effect of the great discourse, is of sin- 
 gular value as evidence of the history of its 
 transmission during the formative period of 
 our gospels. 
 
 The formula /cat eye'vcro otc IrkXtatv 6 'I^crovs 
 kt\. is employed five times in Matthew, each 
 time as the conclusion of one of the great 
 masses of discourse material which distinguishes 
 this gospel (7:28; 11 :i; 13:53; 19:1; 
 26:1). Sir John Hawkins f has given excel- 
 lent reasons for regarding it, however, as a 
 phrase coined not by Matthew ni , but by an earlier 
 * See Appendix B. f Hora Synaptics, p. 132. 
 
168 Appendix A 
 
 compiler.* The first is that " Lk. 7 : 1 cVeiS?) 
 iTrXtjpwaev iravra to. prjfjuara avrov is SO closely 
 parallel in substance, though not in words, to 
 Mt. 7 : 28 as to suggest a common origin for 
 them both." We have just seen that there 
 are phenomena of the text which are unac- 
 countable without a connection between Luke 
 and Matthew". 
 
 We may add to this another conclusion. It 
 was the work already of this Matthew " to com- 
 bine the five Pereqs, as Sir John felicitously calls 
 them, with a narrative, and this narrative at least 
 partly drawn from our Mark. For (1) the for- 
 mula itself implies that the Pereqs were followed 
 not by new discourse, which would make it mean- 
 ingless, but by narrative. (2) In 7 : 28-29 tne 
 formula is combined with Mk. 1:22. (3) A 
 second loan from Mark is made in 8:1-4 
 (= Mk. 1 : 40-44 = Lk. 5 : 12-16), and this, as 
 we have seen,f absurdly ill placed. Both are 
 not likely to have been made by the same hand. 
 We get the same impression (the need to dis- 
 
 * In point of fact our gospel, as we have seen, is 
 distinguished not l>y five but by seven such masses. See 
 above, Appendix A (6), p. 144. f p. 134. 
 
Appendix A 169 
 
 criminate Matthew"' from Matthew") in 26: 1, 
 where the formula is misemployed (ore er&eo-e 
 tovs Xoyovs . . . €t7r£ ktX.) . Moreover, we have 
 seen that the symmetry of the Sermon on the 
 Mount is constantly broken without regard for 
 its beautiful rhetorical balance, and Sir John's 
 careful investigations bring him to the conclusion 
 that this earlier compilation was even more highly 
 characterized than our Matthew (Matthew" 1 ) 
 by attention to numerical form and symmetry. 
 Finally he sees good evidence of an interrela- 
 tion between Matthew" and Luke. We also, 
 besides the apparent dependence in Lk. 6 : 
 43-45, have already noted the remarkable 
 coincidence of Luke's adoption of the very 
 same passage in Mark as that chosen by 
 Matthew for the historical setting of the dis- 
 course, and now, since we have found it need- 
 ful to remove the second loan from Mark 
 (Mt. 8 : 1-4) as manifestly out of place, dis- 
 cover that in consequence the sequence of 
 narrative again coincides (Mt. 8 : 5-10, 13 
 = Lk. 7:2-10). Two such coincidences can- 
 not be accidental. Since our Matthew and 
 Luke are certainly independent, it is either 
 
170 Appendix A 
 
 Matthew H who has borrowed from Luke (or 
 one of his sources), or vice versa. Soltau has 
 recently come forward with an urgent plea for 
 the indispensableness of such a Matthew". 
 Our own independent investigations have shown 
 the assumption to be entirely correct, so far 
 as regards the necessity of an intermediate 
 link to account for the relation of Matthew to 
 Luke. There was a combination of the logia 
 and Mark before our Matthew ; but it merits 
 quite as much the title of Pro to- Luke as 
 Deutero-Matthew, for some of its material is 
 of the very bone and flesh of the " special 
 source " of Luke. Of this type is the present 
 narrative of the Centurion's Servant, which ap- 
 pears not at all in Mark, but, aside from Mt. 
 8 : 5~ r 3 = Lk - 7 = i-io, only in Jn. 4 : 46-54, 
 and there in widely variant form. In its whole 
 animus it is distinctively characteristic of what 
 has been significantly designated " The gospel 
 of the poor and oppressed," * and in the whole 
 mode of representation is of a piece with Acts 
 10 : 1 ff. Moreover, as O. Holtzmann has seen,t 
 
 * See my Introduction to the A T ew Testament, p. 220. 
 f Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 22. 
 
Appendix A 171 
 
 the primary form is the Lucan. That of Matthew 
 is unmistakably secondary. But Matthew can- 
 not have it from our gospel of Luke, since the 
 omission of so much else would be unaccount- 
 able, not to say the composition of the work 
 itself. Neither can it be from Mark, as 
 O. Holtzmann supposes, imagining an acci- 
 dental omission from our form of the second 
 gospel; for it has no affinity with, nor place 
 in Mark. It belonged to that special source of 
 Luke and Acts whose chief feature is its cham- 
 pionship of the lowly, the publican and sinner, 
 the Samaritan, the penitent thief and repentant 
 harlot, the Gentile and the woman, the widowed 
 and poor, the lowly and despised. Matthew 1 " 
 shows appreciation of the bearing of the logion, 
 " I have not seen such faith in Israel," by 
 attaching the refrain of the eschatological dis- 
 course, Lk. 13 : 22-30 = Mt. 24 : 37-25 : 46. 
 But the very separation of the refrain from its 
 proper setting (Lk. 13 : 28-30 = Mt. 24 : 51 ; 
 25:30; cf. 13:42, 50; 22:13), breaking up 
 the symmetrical form of Matthew" is evidence 
 that here we are dealing with a third stage of 
 the process. The narrative will have run 
 
172 Appendix A 
 
 4:18-22 . . . 8:14-16 (17), i b -i3 (cf. Lk. 
 7 : 1-10 ; Jn. 4 : 46-54 ; 6 : 1 ff.), 18 ff.* 
 
 With Mt. 8:13 = Lk. 7:10 we reach the 
 end in Matthew of that great section which the 
 evangelist inserts into the narrative of Mark. 
 Mt. 8:14 resumes the Markan narrative at 
 the point where it had been dropped after 
 4 : i8-2 2,f and proceeds with the chain of ten 
 mighty works, the pendant to the discourse. 
 Luke also has reached the end of the section. 
 Doubtless he derives his ensuing material, 
 7 : 1 1-8 : 3, from the same source, but the 
 connection of his story of the raising of the 
 widow's son at Nain is not in any degree with 
 
 * See my Introduction to the New Testament, p. 201. 
 
 t The demoniac in the Synagogue at Capernaum, Mk. 
 1 : 21-28, is purposely omitted. Matthew manifestly 
 disapproves the theory of Mark that the demons con- 
 stantly recognized Jesus as the Christ and had to be 
 silenced (Mk. 1:34; 3: 11-12; cf. Mt. 12: 16); rightly 
 judging it, apparently, an unwarranted inference from 
 the single authentic instance of Mk. 5:6-8 (= Mt. 
 8:29). Mk. 1:21-28 thus appears to him (rightly so 
 far as the demoniac's outcry is concerned) a doublet of 
 5 : 1-20, and is accordingly omitted ; but with the com- 
 pensation of a second demoniac introduced in 8 : 28-34 ; 
 cf. 9:27-31; 20:29-34. 
 
Appendix A 17) 
 
 the foregoing, but solely with the subsequent 
 account of Jesus' answer to the messengers of 
 the Baptist, bidding them tell John how, among 
 the other works of the Christ, " the dead are 
 raised up." 
 
 Here, accordingly, we lay down our immedi- 
 ate task. Not all the conclusions reached are 
 of equal probability. Where Matthew gives 
 one connection for a saying and Luke another 
 we may have reasonable confidence in choosing 
 that which seems best adapted to the intrinsic 
 sense. Much less can be felt when we depart 
 from both, though such cases are rare. Finally, 
 the inferences drawn as to the stages through 
 which the two-fold report of the discourse has 
 come to us, will seem, no doubt, especially pre- 
 carious. It is but fair to add that our con- 
 clusions as to a Matthew 1 ' employing a Lucan 
 form of the logia rests also on additional evi- 
 dence more than we have space for here. The 
 student should consult Feine, Eine vorkano- 
 nische Ueberlieferung des Lukas, 1891, and 
 Soltau, Eine Liicke der Synoptischcn Forschung, 
 1899, besides the standard works of Weiss,* 
 
 * Markusevangeliutn and Matttnzusevangcliwn. 
 
174 Appendix A 
 
 Weizsacker,* and Holtzmann,f and the re- 
 cent admirable discussions of Hawkins \ and 
 Wernle.§ Further study will doubtless lead to 
 results divergent in detail from those we here 
 present ; but in the main, and especially in the 
 more vital question of the earliest attainable 
 form and connection of the great discourses of 
 Jesus, we may hope to see them ultimately 
 confirmed. 
 
 * Evangelische Geschichte. 
 t Synoptische Evangelien. 
 % Hora Synoptica, 1899. 
 § Synoptische Frage, 1899. 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 TEXT-CRITICAL NOTES TO THE DIS- 
 COURSE ON THE HIGHER RIGHT- 
 EOUSNESS 
 
 ( i ) The (3 text of Mt. 5 : 4-5 inverts the order 
 of these two verses. Verse 5 being simply a 
 reproduction of Ps. 37 : n, we should probably 
 regard it as a gloss which has crept in at differ- 
 ent points from the margin. (See above, Ap- 
 pendix A, p. 127.) 
 
 (2) In 6:21 Luke has twice, and in v. 25 
 once, an explanatory vvv which the parallel in 
 Matthew shows to be editorial. In the same 
 category is the eV accivg rrj fip-epn, v. 23. The 
 real contrast is not between present and future, 
 but seeming and real. The words koL otuv d<£o- 
 piaiaaiv v/xas KCU ovti&ivuxnv and eveKa tov vlov tov 
 avOpwirov (Mt. hiKtv i/xov) in v. 22 are also 
 probably added to conform with the treatment 
 actually experienced by the church. The /? text 
 of Luke omits ko.1 ova8tWm> (introduced by the 
 175 
 
176 Appendix B 
 
 a text from Matthew), and Kal orav a<pop[o-uicnv 
 ifxas clearly imports later conditions. "Evexev 
 ifxov (tou vlov tov avQpoiirov) like xpevSofxcvoi (Mt. 
 5:11) is a qualification of the statement in- 
 tended to guard against misuse. 
 
 Comparison of the antistrophe, v. 26, confirms 
 this reduction of the overloaded v. 22, and shows 
 the contrast to have been simply between being 
 well and ill spoken of by the world. 
 
 In vv. 23 and 26 ol iraTipvi avTwv is unnec- 
 essary and does not appear in v. 26 (/? text) 
 nor in the Matthaean form. It looks like an 
 effort to make the statement exact. The j3 text 
 is also followed in the omission of ko.1 KXavaere 
 in v. 25, and yap in v. 26, on the principle bre- 
 vior lectio preferenda. It is also followed in the 
 omission of 7tc£vt€s in v. 26, and the reading tois 
 ip.TreTrXyjap.evoi'i in v. 25 for vplv ol. 
 
 (3) In Mt. 5:17 kcu rows Trpo<pr)Ta<; appears 
 to be redactional. The contrast oi KaraXvo-at 
 AXXa TvX-qpdma shows that irX-qpOyo-ai is not here 
 used in the sense employed of prophecy. In 
 w. 19 and 20 we read fiao-iXeia tov Oeov on the 
 principle explained in Appendix A (p. 128). In 
 v. 19 ydp for ovv. (See Appendix A, p. 133.) 
 
Appendix B 177 
 
 (4) In Mt. 5 : 22-23 both sense and structure 
 require the emendation of Dr. Peters * above 
 adopted. The strophic form is reproduced in 
 the succeeding antithesis (v. 31) , the contrast 
 is between the heavier offence {uny 'Pa/ca), on 
 which the Sanhedrin impose a light penalty, and 
 the trivial one (eiTnj Matpe) on which the heaviest 
 is imposed. Jesus does not, of course, threaten 
 his disciples with the penalties of the Sanhedrin. 
 In 5 : 23 we insert ippWrj to correspond with 
 v. 31. The emendation is not strictly neces- 
 sary, for Mt. 23 : 18 affords an exact parallel 
 where the corresponding Ae'yowi must be tacitly 
 supplied. 
 
 (5) The words 7rapeKTos Xoyov 7ropveias, Mt. 
 5:32, are certainly a gloss. Jesus' attitude on 
 the subject of divorce is clearly set forth in Mk. 
 10:1-12, where this exception is significantly 
 wanting even in the rule (10:1 1-12) ; but again 
 introduced by Matthew m .f Fortunately we 
 have here the authority of Luke as well in the 
 parallel, Lk. 16:18, for rejecting the interpo- 
 lated exception. But the general principle still 
 
 * Jonrn. of Bib. Lit., 1892, i, p. 131. 
 
 fSee H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestl. Theol., I, p. 142. 
 
 N 
 
178 Appendix B 
 
 more emphatically excludes it. The position 
 taken by Jesus is the same as in the case of the 
 request to arbitrate (Lk. 12 : 13). He refuses 
 to occupy the seat of the law-giver or magistrate 
 in the imperfect conditions of the world. No 
 fault is found with Moses for the enactment 
 necessitated by the hardness of men's hearts 
 (wrong social and moral conditions) . Only this 
 legislation, whose aim is simply to make the best 
 of things as they are in the interest of the family 
 and home, is not to be confounded with the 
 ideal standard of the kingdom of God, of which 
 Jesus finds the pattern in the utterance of the 
 Creator to the unfallen pair in Paradise. With 
 the ideal conditions alone does Jesus concern 
 himself in formulating the principles of the 
 higher righteousness of the kingdom. The ex- 
 ception 7rapeKTos Xoyov 7ropvetas transforms the 
 principle into a rule, and involves Jesus in the 
 rabbinic debate between the schools of Shammai 
 and Hillel. It is as much out of place in Mt. 
 5 : 32 as it would be in Gen. 2 : 24. 
 
 The reading of Lk. 16 : 18, poixtva for 7ro«i 
 avr^v ixoix*vOyvai, adopted by Wendt, is com- 
 mended by its greater simplicity. (See Wendt, 
 
Appendix B 179 
 
 op. cit, p. 59.) In v. 28 avTr]v is omitted after 
 iirLdvfirjaai on the authority of the (3 text. 
 
 (6) The reading of the (3 text is adopted in 
 Mt. 5:37 instead of corw 8« 6 Aoyos i/xwv vcu vat, 
 ou ov. This is indeed the harsher, but may be 
 accounted for as affected by II Cor. 1 : 17-18. 
 The sense can hardly be other than as given in 
 the /3 text, let your simple affirmation or nega- 
 tion be conclusive. This form of the text also 
 omits 6/xoo-^s from v. 36. (See Blass Evangelium 
 secundum Matthceum, 1901, ad loc.) 
 
 (7) In Mt. 5 : 39 the Lucan form is preferred 
 in the latter half of the verse on account of 
 greater conciseness and agreement in form with 
 verses 40, 42. The sense is identical. Mt. 
 7 : 1 2 is placed here on the same authority. The 
 clause ovros yap icrriv 6 vo/xos kcu ol 7rpo<p7]Tai, 
 wanting in Luke, is substantially a doublet of 
 22 : 40. It represents too characteristically the 
 view of Matthew"', and is too easily accounted 
 for redactionally (cf. 5:17) to be admitted as 
 genuine. In Mt. 5:42 ano aov is omitted before 
 Saviow&u with the ft text. 
 
 (8) We add between Mt. 5 : 47 and 48 the 
 verse Lk. 6 : 35, but with much hesitation. It 
 
180 Appendix B 
 
 lengthens the discourse without materially adding 
 to the sense. But the rhetorical structure and 
 balance seem to require it. 
 
 (9) In Mt. 6:18 the words tw ev rw Kpv<f>ai<a 
 and 6 fiXiirav iv tw Kpv^aiia might seem essential 
 to symmetry with verses 4 and 6. But they are 
 bracketed by Blass, * and it is easier to account 
 for them by supplementation from 4 and 6 than 
 to account for their omission, especially as we 
 have here not Kpvn-Tto as in 4, 6, but Kpvcfxiiu. 
 In v. 6 crov after rapa'iov and Ovpav and tw before 
 the first KpvTTTw, which are also wanting in some 
 texts, are omitted as unessential. 
 
 (10) The briefer form of Lk. 6:46-48 
 commends itself in preference to Mt. 7 : 21-25 
 except in one respect. The more elaborate 
 description of the building process eo-Kaxj/ev kcu 
 ifidOwev kol Wr/Ktv 6ip.i\iov seems less original 
 than the simple contrast ort rrjv irirpav . . . eVi 
 t?)i/ ajip,ov. The Matthaean form is accordingly 
 adopted in 7 : 24 b , 25 b -2 7. 
 
 * Op. cit. with a reference to Beitr. z. Ford. Christl. 
 TkeoL, IV, 17 sq., a work not accessible to me. 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
 THE GREATER DISCOURSES OF JESUS 
 CONNECTED WITH THE SERMON 
 ON THE MOUNT, IN CONJECTU- 
 RALLY RESTORED CONTEXT, FORM, 
 AND ORDER* 
 
 I. The Discourse on Prayer 
 
 Lk. 11:1-13; 18 : 1-8 = Mt. 6: 7-13; 7:7-11 
 
 The Occasion 
 
 Lk. 11 : 1 
 
 Lk. 1 1 * And it came to pass that he was in 
 a certain place praying ; and when he ceased 
 one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach 
 
 *The principal transpositions of text in this Appendix 
 are justified in Appendix A, without specific reference 
 in each case. For omissions and other changes of read- 
 ing, and for critical results otherwise embodied in the 
 text of the greater discourses outside the Sermon on the 
 Mount, resort has been had to a few simple typographi- 
 cal devices. Narrative material, such as the evangelist's 
 description of the occasion of the discourse, is double 
 181 
 
182 Appendix C 
 
 us to pray, even as John also taught his dis- 
 ciples. 2 And he said unto them, — 
 
 leaded. The discourse of Jesus is set in. Where it 
 seems to exhibit the lyric structure of prophetic utter- 
 ance, the lines are divided so as to show the parallelism, 
 and strophes so as to show the refrain. Passages which 
 appear to be redactional additions are printed in smaller 
 type. The place of such as are simply removed to other 
 contexts is marked by * * * . Some footnotes were 
 naturally found indispensable, besides these typographi- 
 cal devices — not so much to justify the reconstruction 
 in detail, as to indicate in a general way on what theory 
 the critic has proceeded in his attempt to reproduce syn- 
 thetically all that remains of the discourse in its true 
 historical setting and original context. Also a marginal 
 reference or two is given where close correspondence in 
 thought or phraseology gives evidence of coinage from 
 the same mental mould. This mould may sometimes be 
 the evangelist's, sometimes (e.g. in case of the phrase, 
 "they have received their reward," in Mt. 6: 2, 5, 16, 
 compared with Lk. 6 : 24 and 16 : 25) we must at least 
 carry it back to some proto-evangelist behind our Mat- 
 thew and our Luke, if not to Jesus himself. But justifi- 
 cation in detail of every reading and every synthesis 
 adopted must not be expected. Let the results given be 
 rather regarded only as tentative suggestions, to stand or 
 fall according to subsequent developments. A heavy- 
 faced type has been employed for passages improperly 
 placed in the Sermon on the Mount and here restored to 
 their original connection, that the reader's attention may 
 be called to the fact. 
 
Appendix C 183 
 
 Avoid Heathenish Patter 
 
 Mt. 6 : 7 
 
 Mt. 6 7 When ye pray, babble not by rote, as 
 do the heathen, for they imagine they will 
 be heard for their volubility. 8 * * * . 
 9 After this manner, therefore, pray ye : — 
 
 The Lord's Prayer 
 Lk. ii : 2-4 = Mt. 6:9-13 
 
 Lk. n 2 (i) Father, hallowed be thy name ; 
 
 (ii) thy kingdom come 
 
 (iii) 3 Daily give us our bread for the 
 morrow. 
 
 (iv) 4 And forgive us our sins, for 
 we ourselves also forgive every 
 debtor of ours." * ° Mt 18 : 35; 
 
 (v) And bring us not into tempta- 
 tion. 
 
 * On the significance of the smaller type, see preced- 
 ing note. The original form of the prayer would seem 
 to have included simpiy five brief petitions. Hence 
 the supporting clause attached to the petition for for- 
 giveness will not have more valid claims to originality 
 than the similar clauses appended in the Matthcean 
 version to petitions ii and v, though the addition to 
 petition iv is doubtless older, since it appears in both 
 Matthew and Luke. 
 
 Mk. 11 : 26. 
 
184 Appendix C 
 
 Parable of the Importunate Widow 
 Lk. iS : i-8 
 Lk. 1 8 J And he spake a parable unto them 
 
 on the need of always praying and never losing 
 
 heart, saying, 
 
 2 There was in a certain city a judge who 
 had neither fear for God nor respect for 
 man. 3 And there was a widow in that 
 city, and she came and said to him, Give 
 me justice of my adversary. 4 And for a 
 time he would not. But afterward he said 
 to himself, Though I have no fear for God 
 nor respect for man, 5 yet because this 
 widow annoys me I will do her justice, 
 that she may not plague me by her per- 
 « Lk. 16:8. petual coming. And the Lord said," Hear 
 
 what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall 
 not God do justice for his own chosen 
 people, who cry unto him day and night, 
 though he be longsuffering in their case ? 
 8 1 tell you he will vindicate them speedily. 
 Yet when the Son of Man comes will he 
 find faith on earth ? * 
 
 * This parable is employer! in the connection given 
 it by Luke to support the doctrine of the nearness of 
 "the day when the Son of Man is revealed" (17:30). 
 But clearly the Parousia is here referred to only as an 
 example of answers to prayer that seem long deferred, 
 the principal aim being not to warn of the Parousia, but. 
 
Appendix C 185 
 
 Parable of the Importunate Friend 
 Lk. 11:5-8 
 Lk. 1 1 5 And he said unto them : — 
 
 Which of you shall have a friend, and shall 
 go to him at midnight and say to him, 
 6 Friend, lend me three loaves ; for a friend 
 of mine has come to my house from a 
 journey, and I have nothing to set before 
 him; — 7 and he from inside shall answer 
 and say, Trouble me not : the door is now 
 shut and the children are with me in bed ; 
 I cannot rise and give thee. 8 I tell you, 
 though he will not rise and give him any- 
 thing because he is his friend, yet because 
 of his persistence he will get up and give 
 him all he requires. 
 
 Persist in Prayer 
 Lk. 11:9-13 = Mt. 7:7-11 
 
 Lk. 1 1 9 And I tell you, 
 
 Ask, and it shall be given you, 
 Seek, and ye shall find, 
 
 Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 
 
 to inculcate persistence in believing prayer (note v. 8 b ). 
 Accordingly we range this parable alongside its counter- 
 part, the parable of the Importunate Friend, disregarding 
 the order of Luke. Both these parables fail to appear 
 in Matthew, perhaps because of the seemingly disparag- 
 ing comparison of the divine motive in hearing prayer. 
 
186 Appendix C 
 
 10 For everyone that asketh receiveth, 
 And he that seeketh findeth, 
 
 And to him that knocketh it shall be 
 opened. 
 
 Mt. 7 9 Or what father of you, if his son ask 
 
 bread will give him a stone ? 
 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him 
 
 a serpent? 
 Lk. ii 13 If ye then, wicked as ye are, know 
 
 how to give good gifts to your 
 
 children, 
 how much more will your Father in 
 
 heaven give good things to them 
 
 that ask him ? 
 
 II. The Discourse on Earthly vs. Heavenly 
 Wealth 
 
 Lk. 12 : 13-34; 16 : 1-9, n-13 = Mt. 6 : 19-21, 24-34 
 
 The Occasion 
 
 Lk. 12 : 13-14 
 
 Lk. 12 13 And a man from out the crowd said 
 to him, Teacher, tell my brother to divide the 
 inheritance with me. 14 But he said to him, 
 Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over 
 you ? 
 
Appendix C 187 
 
 The Principle : Jesus shows what are the Real 
 Values of Life 
 Lk. 12: 15 
 Lk. 1 2 13 And he said unto them, 
 
 Take heed and guard yourselves from all 
 covetousness, for a man's living does not 
 consist in his wealth — the things that he 
 possesses." 
 
 a v. 22 ; 
 Mt. 6:25. 
 
 Parable of the Rich Fool 
 Lk. 12: 16-21 
 Lk. 12 I6 And he spake a parable unto them, 
 saying, 
 
 A certain rich man's farm bore great crops. 
 17 And he was reasoning with himself, say- 
 ing, What shall I do, for I have no room to 
 gather in my crops ? 18 And he said, This 
 will I do. I will tear down my barns and 
 build greater, 6 and will gather in thither all ^.24; 
 my grain and my produce. 19 And I will 
 say to my soul, Soul, thou hast many goods 
 laid up for many years ; take a rest, eat, 
 drink and be merry. " But God said unto 
 him, Senseless man, this very night thy life 
 will be required of thee ; who then will 
 have all that thou hast prepared ? 21 So is 
 he that storeth up for himself and is not 
 rich as toward God. 
 
188 Appendix C 
 
 Application : Jesus shows that Life is not for 
 
 Food and Raiment 
 
 Lk. 12 : 22-34 = Mt. 6 : 25-34 
 
 Lk. 1 2 22 And he said unto his disciples, 
 Mt. 6 ■ Therefore I tell you 
 
 Be not anxious as to your life what 
 
 to eat, 
 Nor as to the hody, what to put on. 
 Is not life more than food, 
 » Lk. 12 : 15, and the body than raiment ? ■ 
 
 22- 26 Consider the ravens, 
 
 how they sow not, nor reap, 
 nor do they garner into barns ; 
 yet God feedeth them. 
 Are not you worth more than they ? 
 
 27 Which of you can add a span to his 
 
 age by anxiety ? 
 
 28 Why then be anxious about raiment ? 
 Take a lesson from the meadow- 
 lilies' growth, 
 
 they toil not, neither do they spin ; 
 
 29 Yet I tell you, Solomon himself, in 
 » Lk. 12 : 18, all his splendor/ 
 
 *?' , was not robed like one of these. 
 
 Lccl. 2 : i-ii. 
 
 30 But if the meadow-grass, that is 
 
 to-day 
 and to-morrow serves as fuel for 
 the oven, 
 
Appendix C 189 
 
 God doth so clothe, 
 shall he not much more clothe you, 
 distrustful ones ? 
 
 31 Take then no anxious thought, 
 saying, What shall we eat, or drink, 
 
 or wear ? 
 
 32 For all such things are the pursuit 
 
 of Gentiles ; 
 but your Father knoweth ye need 
 
 all these things.* 
 Seek ye then his kingdom ; 
 and all these things shall be given 
 
 you besides. 
 
 Lk. 12 s Fear not, little flock, 
 
 it is your Father's decree 
 to give you the kingdom. 
 
 Mt. 6 u Lay up for yourselves no stores upon 
 earth 
 where moth and rust consume 
 and where thieves break in and steal. 
 
 * That is, those who are conscious of a divine calling, 
 like Israel, the people of God, should assume that provi- 
 sion will be made for their needs at least equal to that 
 made for ravens and lilies. The Gentiles have no such 
 consciousness. Compare Ps. Aristeas, 140 (90 B.C.), 
 "The Jews are called by the Egyptians the People of 
 God, because they are not, like others, men of food and 
 drink and clothing, but are given to searching out God's 
 works." 
 
190 Appendix C 
 
 Lk. 12 ^Sell what ye have and give it for 
 alms, 
 make yourselves purses that do not 
 
 wear out, 
 a treasure in heaven that will not 
 fail, 
 Mt. 6 M where neither moth nor rust con- 
 sumes 
 and where thieves do not break in 
 nor steal. 
 21 For where the treasure is, there also is 
 the heart. 
 
 Two Parables on the Use to be made of 
 Earthly Wealth 
 
 First Parable : Jesus shows by the Example of 
 the Provident Steward how Treasure can be 
 stored in Heaven 
 
 Lk. 16: 1-9 
 
 Lk. 16 'He said also unto the disciples, 
 There was a certain rich man who had a 
 steward, and accusation was brought him 
 against the steward of squandering his prop- 
 erty. 2 So he called him, and said to him, 
 What is this I hear about thee? Give in 
 the account of thy stewardship, for thou 
 mayst no longer be steward. 3 Now the 
 
Appendix C 191 
 
 steward said to himself, What am I to do, 
 seeing my master taketh away the steward- 
 ship from me? To dig I have not strength. 
 To beg I am ashamed. — * I know what 
 I will do, so that when I am put out of 
 the stewardship people may take me in to 
 their own homes. 4 So calling in each of 
 his master's debtors, he proceeded to say 
 to the first, How much owest thou to my 
 master? And he said, A hundred casks of 
 oil. And he said to him, Here ; take thy 
 contract, sit down at once and write fifty 
 instead. 7 Then he said to another, And 
 how much owest thou? And he said, A 
 hundred quarters of wheat. He says to 
 him, Take thy contract and write eighty. 
 8 And the master praised the dishonest 
 steward for his shrewd dealing ; for the 
 sons of this world are shrewder than the 
 sons of light in their conduct toward their 
 own generation. 9 And I tell you, Use your 
 ' vile lucre ' to make friends for yourselves ; 
 so that when it fails, these may receive you 
 into eternal dwellings.* 
 
 * On the reasons for connecting Lk. 12 : 13-34 with 
 16 : 1-9, 11-13, see Appendix A (S), p. 154. We para- 
 phrase the peculiar expression " mammon of unrighteous- 
 ness" (see below, Lk. 16 : 13, and cf. "steward of un- 
 righteousness," v. 8, "judge of unrighteousness," Lk. 
 18:6) by the current phrase ' vile lucre.' 
 
192 Appendix C 
 
 Second Parable : Jesus shows by the Example of 
 the Intrusted Talents that God requires us to 
 turn our Resources and Opportunity to Good 
 Account 
 
 Lk. 19 : 1 1-28 = Mt. 25 : 14-30 
 
 Lk. 19 n And as they were listening to this, 
 he related to them a second parable, because he 
 was near Jerusalem, and they supposed the kingdom 
 of God was about to appear at once.* So he said, 
 
 * In the Lucan form the Parable of the Talents (Mince) 
 has undergone a decided transformation, to which the 
 explanatory addition in 19: 11 affords the key. The di- 
 dactic intent of the parable is clearly man's responsibility 
 for God-given talent and opportunity. The mere length 
 of time to elapse before the accounting is not an essential 
 feature. Its purpose is therefore incorrectly stated in 
 Lk. 19: 11. In Mt. 25: 19 the "long time" simply al- 
 lows for the doubling of the intrusted capital. But take 
 just the features which appear only in the Lucan form 
 ("to receive a kingdom and to return " in v. 12, verse 14, 
 "having received the kingdom" in v. ic;, and verse 27), 
 and all subserve the purpose of making this change in 
 the original purpose. Not God but Christ now appears 
 as furnishing the capital, which is correspondingly re- 
 duced (twenty dollars as against fifty thousand) and 
 equally divided. (Nevertheless in v. 24 the first ser- 
 vant is still designated " He that had the ten mince," 
 implying an original in which the division, as in Mat- 
 thew, had been unequal.) He goes to receive a king' 
 
Appendix C 193 
 
 Mt. 25 14 A certain man going on a journey 
 summoned his slaves, and delivered to them 
 his property. 15 To one he gave fifty thou- 
 sand dollars, to another twenty, to another 
 ten ; to each according to his ability. And 
 he said to them, Do business with this till I 
 return, and went away. lfi Straightway he 
 
 dom ; he is opposed by his fellow-countrymen ; he returns 
 to punish the rebellious. All these new traits serve to 
 transform the parable into an allegory of the Second 
 Coming and echo the idea that it was uttered " Because 
 he was nigh to Jerusalem and they supposed that the king- 
 dom of God would immediately appear," an idea which 
 the evangelist in other passages shows a desire to correct 
 {e.g. 17: 25). Moreover, besides the evidence of altera- 
 tion in verse 24, all these new traits are drawn from the 
 well-known experience of Archelaus (Jos. Ant. xvii, 9:3; 
 11 : 1-14; 13 : 1). The Lucan form is therefore certainly 
 less original than the Matthsean, which we adopt. This, 
 however, does not guarantee every detail of the Mat- 
 threan. Thus the last clause of verses 21 and 23 (want- 
 ing in the Lucan form) and verse 30 (composed of two 
 refrains repeated in Mt. S: 12; 22:13; 25 : 30 and 8: 12; 
 13:42,50; 22:13; 2 4 : 5 x > 2 5 : 3°) f° rm an incongruous 
 and probably later element. (See next note.) Luke, on 
 the other hand, has a saying in 12: 47-48 which should 
 probably be added. For the servant who knew his Lord's 
 will and did it not (a scarcely veiled reference to Israel, 
 cf. Rom. 2 : 17-20 and Amos 3 : 1-2) is clearly the " un- 
 profitable servant " of the parable. Here too the moral 
 is, Superior opportunity implies greater responsibility. 
 o 
 
194 appendix C 
 
 that had received the fifty thousand dollars 
 engaged in business with it and made fifty 
 thousand more. 17 Likewise he of the twenty 
 thousand, twenty thousand more. 18 But he 
 that received the ten thousand went away 
 and dug a hole in the ground and hid his 
 master's money. 19 Now after a long time 
 the master of those slaves comes and settles 
 his account with them. 20 So he that had re- 
 ceived the fifty thousand dollars came and 
 brought fifty thousand more, saying, Sir, 
 thou didst deliver to me fifty thousand dol- 
 lars. See, I have gained fifty thousand 
 more. 21 His master said unto him, Well 
 done, good and faithful slave, thou wast 
 faithful over few things, I will set thee over 
 many. Enter thy master's feast* 2 He also 
 who had received the twenty thousand dol- 
 lars came and said, Sir, thou deliveredst to 
 me twenty thousand dollars. See, I have 
 gained twenty thousand more. a His mas- 
 ter said to him, Well done, good and faith- 
 ful slave, thou hast been faithful over a few 
 things, I will set thee over many. Enter thy 
 master's feast.* 24 Then he who had received 
 
 * An assimilation by the evangelist of this parable to 
 those he has placed alongside. The original has no ref- 
 erence to a feast, but suitably rewards the slave by a 
 position of more exalted service. 
 
Appendix C 195 
 
 the ten thousand came and said, Sir, I knew 
 thee to be an exacting man, reaping where 
 thou didst not sow, and garnering where 
 thou didst not winnow. ^So I was afraid 
 and went and hid thy ten thousand dollars 
 in the ground. Here thou hast what be- 
 longs to thee. * But his master answering 
 said to him, Thou wicked and backward 
 slave ! Thou knewest that I reap where I 
 sowed not, and garner in where I winnowed 
 not? ^Then oughtest thou to have placed 
 my money with the bankers, and I would 
 have gone and obtained my own with inter- 
 est. M Therefore take away from him the 
 ten thousand dollars and give it to him that 
 hath the fifty thousand. Lk. 19 x I tell you, 
 To everyone that hath shall be given more, 
 and from him that hath not shall be taken 
 what he hath. 
 
 First Application : Jesus teaches that the Use of 
 Wealth may show Fitness for Higher Things 
 
 Lk. 16 : 10-13 = Mt - 6 : 2 4 
 
 Lk. 16 10 He that is faithful in a very little is 
 faithful also in much, 
 and he that is faithless in a very 
 little is faithless also in much. 
 
196 Appendix C 
 
 1 6 u If then ye were not found faithful in 
 the matter of vile lucre, 
 who will intrust to you the true 
 wealth? 
 
 12 And if ye were not found faithful in 
 
 another's property, 
 who will give you your own ? 
 
 13 No house-servant can be slave to two 
 
 masters ; 
 
 for either he will hate the one and 
 love the other, 
 
 or else he will cling to one and hold 
 the other in aversion. 
 
 Ye cannot serve both God and Mam- 
 mon. 
 
 Second Application : Israel's Greater Enlighten- 
 ment implies Heavier Punishment for Unfaith- 
 fulness 
 
 Lk. 12: 47-48 
 
 Lk. 12 * 7 Moreover that slave which knew his 
 « Rom. 2: 17- master's will," 
 
 yet made not ready nor did accord- 
 ing to his will, 
 & Am. 3 : 2. shall be beaten with many stripes. 6 
 
 48 But he that knew it not, 
 and did things worthy of stripes 
 shall be beaten with few. 
 
Appendix C 197 
 
 To whomsoever much is given, 
 from him shall much be required, 
 and with whomsoever people place 
 
 much in trust, 
 from him they demand the more. 
 
 Two Additional Parables on False Stand- 
 ards of Judgment 
 
 Occasion 
 
 Lk. 16: 14-15 
 
 Lk. 16 u Now the Pharisees were hearkening 
 to all these things, they were avaricious,* and they 
 began to mock at him. 15 And he said to them, 
 
 * If avarice was a sin specially characteristic of the 
 Pharisees, of which we have no evidence elsewhere, it is 
 not the one rebuked by Jesus in the words which follow, 
 nor even in the ensuing parable of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus. Doubtless the early Christian opponent of the 
 Pharisees saw his antagonist depicted in the person of 
 Dives, and, as we shall see, found occasion even to ex- 
 tend the application of this minatory parable to the Jew- 
 ish adherent of Moses and the Prophets by an addendum 
 directed against Dives' " five brethren." But the par- 
 able itself does not call the rich man a Pharisee. It is 
 not directed against love of money ; but rebukes worldly 
 standards of judgment. Its theme is precisely as stated 
 in v. 15, "That which is exalted among men is an 
 abomination in the sight of God." Men admire and 
 
198 Appendix C 
 
 Ye are they that make yourselves out right- 
 
 « 18 : 14. eous in the sight of men a ; but God know- 
 
 eth your hearts. For that which among 
 
 envy the rich man ; God may exalt the lowest beggar. 
 It does not belong to the exposition of this principle to 
 say that the rich man was bad and the beggar good, or 
 that he was a Pharisee and the beggar a Publican ; the 
 point, and the whole point, is that differences in earthly 
 conditions are not a blind to the divine judgment. Thus 
 the clause, <pCKdpyvpoi vwdpxovres, in v. 14, and v. 15 b 
 are reciprocally exclusive ; and of the two alternative in- 
 timations, the saying of Jesus in v. 15 is as certainly cor- 
 rect as the editorial comment in v. 14 is incorrect, and 
 therefore appears in small type. It is true, as we shall 
 see in the note next following, that the parable against 
 judging by worldly station would hardly be a rebuke 
 of the Pharisees if it stood alone. It might almost rep- 
 resent the very feeling of the Pharisee himself toward 
 his great antagonist, the rich and worldly Sadducee. 
 But we have reason to think it did not stand alone, but 
 side by side with one as exactly fitted to v. 15 a as this 
 to 15 b. And the full significance of both appears when 
 we bring in, as we have done, Lk. 12: 47-48 in place of 
 16 : 13. For now the reason for the scoffing of the Phari- 
 sees, so incomprehensible before, becomes apparent. The 
 Pharisee's confidence was far from being in his riches — 
 rather the contrary — but in the fact of his "knowing his 
 Lord's will." The scoffs were provoked by the threat of 
 " many stripes " for the servant who " knew his lord's will 
 and did it not," as compared with the few stripes of the 
 
Appendix C 199 
 
 men is exalted is an abomination in the 
 sight of God.* 
 
 am haarelz in his ignorance of the law. The real issue 
 accordingly was broader than merely the superiority of 
 the divine judgment to worldly conditions of wealth vs. 
 poverty : this only led up to the more fundamental prin- 
 ciple as stated in v. 15 and exemplified in the second par- 
 able, wherein the divine judgment is also shown to be 
 superior to worldly (Pharisaic) estimates of moral worth. 
 * The very phraseology of 18: 9-14, a parable said to 
 have been uttered "against certain who esteemed them- 
 selves to be righteous and despised others," but without 
 any indication whatever of the occasion or provocation, 
 is enough to show that it must have followed originally 
 upon 16: 15. The very verb diKawOv, common to 16: 15 
 and 18: 14 occurs nowhere else in the gospels in this 
 sense save Mt. 12 : 37, and, as we have seen (see preced- 
 ing note), the context as imperatively demands teaching 
 against this self-exaltation of the Pharisees. As the 
 parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus shows how God 
 " looks not upon the outward man, but upon the heart " 
 in the case of worldly station, so its companion, the par- 
 able of the Pharisee and the Publican, applies the same 
 principle to Pharisaic self-esteem. The rtvh of 18:9 
 had of course to be substituted for an original rods, or 
 irpbs avTovs 81c. rb weiroid., or the like, when the parable 
 lost its original connection with 16: 14-15. That which 
 now follows at this point, 16: 16-18, is clearly remote 
 from the subject and easily demonstrated to belong in a 
 different context (cf. Mt. 11 : 12-13; 5 : x 8. 32, and see 
 Appendix A (6)). 
 
200 Appendix C 
 
 Parable of the Rich Man and the Beggar : Jesus 
 teaches the Worthlessness of Human Stand- 
 ards of Respect 
 
 Lk. 16 : 19-25 [26-31] 
 
 Lk. 16 19 Now there was a certain rich man, 
 who was robed in purple and fine linen, 
 and lived in splendid luxury every day. 
 20 And a certain pauper named Lazarus* lay 
 at his gateway, a a mass of ulcers, and fain 
 to eat the remnants from the rich man's 
 table ; the very dogs would come and lick 
 his ulcers. "In course of time the pauper 
 died, and he was borne by the angels into 
 the bosom of Abraham. And the rich 
 man also died, and was entombed. 23 And 
 in the underworld he lifted up his eyes, for 
 he was one that was in torment, and sees 
 afar off Abraham, and Lazarus in his bosom. 
 
 24 And calling aloud he said, Father Abra- 
 ham, pity me, and send Lazarus to dip but 
 the tip of his finger in water and cool my 
 tongue, for I am in agony in this flame. 
 
 25 But Abraham said, My son, remember 
 that thou didst receive thy good things to 
 
 « Lk. 6:24; the full," and in like manner Lazarus his 
 
 Mt.6:2,5,i6. ev jj things; but now he is comforted here, 
 
 * I.e. Gotthelf — God help. 
 
Appendix C 201 
 
 whereas thou art tormented. 26 And besides 
 all this a great chasm has been fixed between us and 
 you, so that those who might wish to cross hence 
 unto you are not able, nor can any cross from 
 thence unto us. 27 And he said, I entreat thee, 
 father, to send him to my father's house — 28 for I 
 have live brothers — that he may bear witness to 
 them, that they also may not come into this place 
 of torment. 2y But Abraham saith, They have 
 Moses and the prophets ; let them listen to them. 
 80 But he said, Nay, father Abraham, but if someone 
 should go to them from the dead they would re- 
 pent. 31 But he answered him, If they harken not 
 to Moses and the prophets, they would not yield 
 were one even to rise from the dead.* 
 
 Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican : Jesus 
 teaches who has Righteousness in God's Sight 
 
 Lk. 18 =9-14 (duplicate of v. 14 in Lk. 14: 11) = Mt. 
 23 : 12 
 
 Lk. 18 9 And he spake this parable against 
 such as put trust in themselves that they were 
 righteous and despised others : — 
 
 * The addition, ver. 26-31, introduces a theme alien 
 to the parable. Moreover it is borrowed from current 
 apocalyptic expectation, which taught that Moses and 
 Elias (sometimes Enoch and Klias, or Elias alone, Rev. 
 11 : 3-12 ; Mk. 9: 1 1— 13) would rise from the dead to 
 "witness" for Messiah, and turn Israel to him in re- 
 pentance. See the article in the Am. Journ. of Theol. 
 above referred to (Appendix A, p. 155). 
 
202 Appendix C 
 
 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray, 
 the one a Pharisee and the other a Publi- 
 can. "The Pharisee stood and prayed 
 after this style : O God, I thank thee that 
 I am not like the rest of men, plunderers, 
 dishonest, adulterers, or even like this Pub- 
 lican. V1 1 fast two days in the week. I 
 pay tithes on every article I possess. 1; The 
 Publican, standing afar off, would not so 
 much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat 
 upon his breast, saying, O God, be merciful 
 to me, sinner that I am. 14 I tell you this 
 man went to his home blessed with right- 
 eousness rather than the other. 
 
 For he that exalteth himself shall be hum- 
 bled, 
 
 but he that humbleth himself shall be ex- 
 alted. 
 
 III. First Discourse of the Crisis and Re- 
 jection in Galilee.* Jesus defends his 
 Mission against the Covert Slander of the 
 Scribes who came down from Jerusalem 
 
 Occasion 
 After feeding a multitude in the wilderness 
 Jesus heals the dumb and blind, evoking Mes- 
 
 * The greater discourses of the period of Galilean ac- 
 tivity, such as the Parables of the Kingdom, Mt. 13 : 1-52, 
 
Appendix C 203 
 
 sianistic acclamation, Mk. 8 : i-io, 22 b -26; 
 
 7 : 32-37=Mt. 15 : (29-31) 32-39 J 9 : 27-34 = 
 
 do not appear to have been drawn upon by our first 
 evangelist for the filling up of the Sermon on the Mount. 
 One saying, Mt. 7 : 6, appears indeed to be more likely 
 to have been uttered in connection with the discourse to 
 the Twelve when sent to preach in Galilee, Mt. 9 : 35- 
 10: 1 = Mk. 6: 6 -7 = Lk. 9: 1-2 {duplicate 10 : 1-2); 
 Mt. 10:5-8; Mt. 10:9-11 = Mk. 6: 8-10 = Lk. 9: 3-4 
 {duplicate 10:4*); Mt. 10: 12-13 = Lk. lO:4 b -6; Mt. 
 10: 14-15 = Lk. 10: 10-12 {duplicate Lk. 9:5 = Mk- 
 6: 11); Mk. 6:12 = Lk. 9:6. It might have been 
 uttered after Mt. 10: 12-13 = Lk. io:4 h -6 with greater 
 probability than on occasion of Mt. 16: 20, as proposed 
 by O. Holtzmann (Leben Jesu, p. 258). But the logion 
 was doubtless taken up by the evangelist from floating 
 tradition, and the attempt to fix on its original context is 
 altogether too precarious. The case is different with the 
 great discourse of Jesus' conflict in Capernaum with the 
 religious authorities, provoked by their blasphemous ex- 
 planation of his miracles. As to this, the principal diffi- 
 culties come rather from the multitude of independent 
 reports. It is quite clear, however, from the main ac- 
 counts in Lk. 11: 14-12: 1 = Mt. 12: 22-50 that we have 
 two principal discourses to distinguish, (1) that of the 
 morning, when, arriving home from the scene of cul- 
 mination of his popularity, Jesus finds the scribes from 
 Jerusalem in possession of the field, and himself put upon 
 the defensive by the slander covertly (Mt. 12: 25 = Lk. 
 n: 17) set in circulation by them, "He exorciseth by 
 Beelzebub." The discourse of the morning is accord- 
 
204 Appendix C 
 
 John 9 : 1-6 ; 10 : 19-20 {duplicate Mk. 6 : 30- 
 56 = Mt. 14 : 13-36 = Lk. 9 : 10-17 = John 
 6 : 1-2 1) ; Mt. 12 : 22-23 = Lk. 11 : 14. These 
 murmurs of popular approval are met on the 
 part of certain scribes who had come down from 
 Jerusalem by the verdict, He casteth out devils 
 by Beelzebub, Mk. 3:22 = Mt. 12 : 23 b -24 
 (duplicate 9 : 34) = Lk. 11 : 15 = John 10 : 21.* 
 
 ingly defensive. But (2) at the noonday meal, Lk. 
 11:37-41 = Mk. 7:1-21, the scribes from Jerusalem 
 and their Pharisaic adherents found occasion for a direct 
 attack, and openly charged him with neglect of the or- 
 dinances of ceremonial cleanness. Jesus then takes up 
 the gauntlet, publicly renounces ceremonialism, and 
 formally turns the accusation back upon his accusers by 
 denouncing prophetic woes against Pharisees and scribes 
 alike. To their demand of a sign from Heaven in au- 
 thentication of these revolutionary utterances he replies 
 (3) with the offer of the sign of Jonah and the Ninevites, 
 Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. These two later dis- 
 courses, in which Jesus takes the offensive, may there- 
 fore be more appropriately treated as separate, although 
 their connection with the first in both occasion and con- 
 tent is intimate. 
 
 * As I have shown in my Introduction (p. 207), at 
 least this portion of Mark contains duplicate material, 
 which naturally causes still further duplication when it 
 reappears in the dependent gospel of Matthew. Luke 
 is characteristically more cautious and omits the more 
 
Appendix C 205 
 
 (i) Feeding of the Multitude 
 
 Mk. 8:i-IO = Mt. 15:32-39 {duplicate, Mk. 6:30-56 
 = Mt. 14: 13-36 = Lk. 9: 10-17 = Jn. 6: 1-21) 
 
 Mk. 8 'In those days, when there was again" a "6:34. 
 great multitude and they had nothing to eat, he 
 called his disciples and saith to them, 2 I have 
 compassion on the multitude, because it is now 
 three days that they have been staying with me, 
 and they have nothing to eat. 3 And if I send 
 them away to their homes fasting, they will faint 
 by the way; and some of them are come from 
 far. 4 And the disciples answered him, Whence 
 could one supply these men with bread here in 
 the wilderness? 5 And he asked them, How 
 many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven. 
 6 And he bade the multitude be seated on the 
 ground. And he took the seven loaves and 
 gave the thanksgiving and brake, and gave to 
 his disciples to set before them, and they set it 
 
 glaring instances, such as the two feedings of the multi- 
 tude and two collisions with the scribes from Jerusalem, 
 though not all duplication is avoided (Lk. 8: 19-21 = 
 1 1 : 27-28). The fourth gospel is as usual controlled by 
 the third. In our text the simpler and more original form 
 is of course made the basis. In Mk. 8 : 1 it contains 
 the single word, irciX^, " again," from the editorial pen. 
 
206 Appendix C 
 
 before the multitude. 7 And they had a few 
 little fish, and he blessed them and bade dis- 
 tribute these also. 8 And they ate and were 
 filled. And they took up seven baskets of frag- 
 ments that were left over. 9 Novv there were 
 about four thousand of them. 
 «Mk. 6:45. And he dismissed them," 10 and straightway, 
 entering into the boat with his disciples, came 
 into the parts of Dalmanutha.* 
 
 (2) Healing a Blind Man by touching his Eyes 
 with Spittle 
 
 Mk. 8:22 b -26 = Mt. 9:27-31 {duplicates in 12:22; 
 20:30-34) = Jn. 9: 1-12 
 
 Mk. 8 22 * * *f And they bring unto him a 
 » v. 32. blind man, 6 and entreat him to touch him.'' 
 
 * For Dalmanutha Matthew has Magadan. The places 
 are unknown, but either name designates some obscure 
 place on the shore of the Gennesaret plain, not far 
 from Capernaum. The duplicate account in Mk. 6:53 
 has "came to land at Gennesaret, and moored to the 
 shore." They had been driven from their intended 
 course to Bethsaida (6 : 45) by a strong headwind from 
 the northeast (the usual direction of violent winds on the 
 lake), and thus landed probably somewhere along the 
 southern extremity of the plain. 
 
 t The first clause of Mk. 8:22 should be reckoned 
 with the preceding context. The healing of the blind 
 
Appendix C 207 
 
 23 And he took hold of the blind man with his 
 hand and led him forth outside the village," and « v. 33. 
 when he had spat upon his eyes 4 and laid his * v -33: 
 hands on him c he asked him if he saw anything, e v . 33 . 
 24 And he looked up and said, I see men; for I 
 
 man is an incident so thoroughly marked and so closely 
 connected with that of Mk. 7 : 32-37 as to compel identi- 
 fication with that which both in Mt. 9 : 27-34 and Mt. 
 12:22 is associated with the casting out of the dumb 
 devil. Why it was removed from this connection in 
 Mark to one which locates it at Bethsaida can only be 
 conjectured. That the location is incorrect is apparent 
 from verses 23 and 26, where the locality is called a 
 ku)/xt), i.e. "village" or "hamlet." Jn. 9: 1-12 locates 
 this healing at Jerusalem, with a mystical reference to 
 the pool of Siloam (cf. dW<TTei\ep, v. 25). This is of 
 course still more incompatible with the /cwyinj of Mark. 
 That the incident is really the same is evidenced not 
 merely by the remarkable trait of the use of spittle (cf. 
 also Mk. 7:33), but (1) by the altercation with the 
 Pharisees on spiritual blindness, which follows in Jn. 
 9:35-41, culminating in v. 41 with the declaration on 
 Jesus' part that the sin of the Pharisees is eternal, and 
 (2) by the calumny on their part, " He hath a devil," 
 10 : 20. On the authority of so many cases where a heal- 
 ing of the blind is connected with the altercation with 
 the Pharisees (Mt. 9 : 27-34 ; 12:22-32; 15:30-16:1; 
 Jn. 9: 1-10: 21 ; see also Lk. 11 : 34-36 and Mt. 15 : 14) 
 we venture to transpose Mk. 8: 22*'-26 to a position im- 
 mediately before 7 : 32-37. 
 
208 Appendix C 
 
 behold as it were trees* walking about. ^Then 
 he put his hands again upon his eyes," and he 
 looked and was restored, and saw all things 
 clearly. 26 And he sent him away 6 to his house, 
 saying, Do not even enter the village. 
 
 (3) Healing of a Dumb Man, followed by 
 Popular Acclamation 
 
 Mk. 7: 32-37 = Mt. 9: 32-33 {duplicate [Mk. 6: 53-56] 
 Mt. 12 : 22-23 1 = Lk. 11 : 14 = Jn. 6 : 14) 
 
 Mk. 7 32 And they bring unto him c one that 
 was dumb and had an impediment of speech, 
 d and entreat him to lay his hand on him. 
 33 "And he took him aside apart from the crowd 
 by himself, and put his fingers in his ears/ and 
 spat and touched his tongue". ^And looking 
 up to heaven he sighed, and saith to him, 
 Ephphatha,* that is, Be opened. ■" And his ears 
 were opened and straightway the bond of his 
 tongue was loosed, and he spoke rightly. ^And 
 
 * The trunk of a tree — the blind do not consider the 
 top — compares closely in dimensions with a human 
 body. This blind man realizes that the moving objects 
 of this size must of course be men. Compare the inter- 
 esting description of the gradual restoration of speech 
 to the dumb man immediately following. 
 
Appendix C 209 
 
 he charged them to tell no man. But the more 
 
 he charged them the more exceedingly did they 
 
 proclaim the matter." And people were aston- » i : 44-45. 
 
 ished beyond all measure, saying, ^He hath 
 
 done all things well, he maketh even the deaf to 
 
 hear and the dumb to speak. 6 * & Mt. 9:33; 
 
 12 : 23 ; 
 * The identification of the two healings of the blind 1^:30-31; 
 
 and dumb in the two passages of Mark above given, with Lk. ll '■ z 4> 
 the casting out of a "dumb devil" in Lk. II: 14, the •»•**+■ 
 healing of two blind and one dumb in Mt. 9 : 27-33, and 
 of one "blind and dumb" in Mt. 12: 23, may seem to 
 require more than has thus far been adduced to justify 
 it ; especially if we proceed so far as to make the heal- 
 ing of the blind in Jn. 9: 1-10: 21 refer to the same. 
 
 One of the principal notes of identity is the special 
 notice of the amazement of the multitude which in this 
 case is carried to the highest pitch of all the Markan 
 narratives (cf. 2:12; 5:42); not of course that the 
 miracle is more surprising than the raising of Jairus' 
 daughter, but that the evangelist would describe it as 
 the actual culmination of popular wonder which precipi- 
 tated a momentous conflict. For, to take up at once a 
 second and third note of identity, the narrative proceeds 
 to relate (2) the Feeding of the Multitude, and the 
 effort of the Pharisees to counteract Jesus' popularity by 
 attributing his miracles to Satan (a trait wanting in Mk. 
 8: 11), and (3) demanding a sign from Heaven. In 
 like manner Lk. 11:14, Mt. 9:32, and Mt. 12:24, 
 which add the blasphemy of the Pharisees, all proceed 
 from the amazement of the multitude to the demand of a 
 P 
 
210 Appendix C 
 
 (4) Messianistic Acclamation met by the Scribes 
 from Jerusalem : 'He caste th out by Beelzebub ' 
 
 Mt. l2:23 b -24 {duplicate 9:34) = Mk. 3:22 = Lk. II: 15 
 = Jn. 10: 20 
 
 Mt. 12 ^And they said, Can this be 
 the Son of David? 24 But when the Phari- 
 
 sign from Heaven, Mt. 12 : 23 f. giving the distinctively 
 Messianist character to the acclamation that the people 
 said, " Is not this the Son of David." Now the only oc- 
 casion of this kind we know of, an occasion which in its 
 public features could hardly be repeated, is related in 
 Jn. 6: 14-15, where again it leads to the demand of a 
 sign from Heaven (v. 30-33), here also following upon 
 the feeding of the multitude, yet not because of it, but 
 because " the people saw the signs (true reading, cf. v. 2) 
 which he did." This identification is clinched by the 
 duplication of Mt. 12:38-39 in Mt. 16: 1-5 = Mk. 
 8: II-13. A fourth note of identity appears in the next 
 succeeding item, a discourse of Jesus warning against 
 the teaching of the Pharisees under the figure of bread, 
 which is followed by the withdrawal to Ccesarea Philippi 
 and Confession of Peter, Mk. 8 : 14-22", 27-30 = Mt. 
 16:5-12, 13-16. Of this Luke has but the brief state- 
 ment 12:1, but John expands into the great discourse 
 on the true Bread from Heaven with a curiously variant 
 version of the Petrine Confession, 6 : 22-65, 66-71. 
 
 If these incidents be studied in their interrelation as a 
 group, of which sometimes two or three, sometimes more, 
 are always found together, the portions of Mark omitted 
 by Luke, but which appear in Matthew, and by their ap- 
 
Appendix C 211 
 
 sees* heard it, they said, this man only casteth 
 out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. 
 
 pearance give rise to the remarkable doublets of that 
 gospel, such as 12: 38-39 = 16: 1-5, will appear in their 
 true light. Mk. 8 : 22 b -26 (displaced as shown above, 
 p. 206 note t)> 7: 32-37 are the two specific healings of 
 the blind and dumb, related in all the pristine freshness 
 and graphic detail of the Markan source, which in the 
 later accounts are more vaguely spoken of as healings of 
 two blind men and a dumb man (Mt. 9: 27-33 — Note 
 that the popular cry, " Is not this the Son of David," of 
 Mt. 12: 23, is here placed in the mouth of the healed 
 blind men with further assimilation to the Bartimxus 
 episode, Mt. 20 : 30-34 = Mk. 10:46-52), "one pos- 
 sessed with a devil, blind and dumb" (Mt. 12:22), a 
 "dumb devil" (Lk. ii: 14 — Note, however, the con- 
 nected saying on spiritual blindness, vv. 34-36), "a man 
 blind from birth " (Jn. 9: i-io: 21), and "signs done on 
 them that were sick" (Jn. 6: 2). Everywhere the dis- 
 tinctive feature of these particular healings (or at least 
 of one of the two) is that they precipitated the great 
 crisis when the Pharisees on their part blasphemed 
 Jesus as possessed of an unclean spirit, took him openly 
 to task as "a sinner" (Mk. 7:i-24 = Mt. 15:1-20), 
 and demanded a sign from Heaven, Jesus replying by a 
 true Philippic against the Pharisees. If this fact receive 
 adequate consideration, it will at once appear why we 
 further include in our identification Jn. 9: 1-10:21 ; cf. 
 9: 24, 40-41 ; 10: 20 with Mt. 12 : 24, 32. 
 
 * Mark : " the scribes who had come down from Jeru- 
 salem," cf. 7 : 1. 
 
212 Appendix C 
 
 Jesus 1 Defence 
 
 Mt. 12:25-32 (34, 36-37?)= Lk. 11:17-23; 12:10 = 
 
 Mk. 3 : 23-30 * 
 
 (1) Is Satan's Kingdom divided? 
 
 Mt. 12: 25-26 = Mk. 3: 23-26 = Lk. 11 : 17-18 
 
 Mt. 12 25 And when he perceived their thoughts 
 he said unto them : — ■ 
 
 Every kingdom divided against itself be- 
 
 cometh desolate 
 and every city or household divided against 
 
 itself is overthrown. 
 
 * In my Introduction, p. 209, I have endeavored to 
 show that the sparing use of the Login in Mark is not 
 due to lack of acquaintance on the part of our second 
 evangelist with that primitive compilation, instancing 
 Mk. 1 : 15 as affected by Lk. 4 : 21 (cf. 6 : 1-6) ; 1 : 24 by 
 Mt. 8 : 29, from which Mark deduces the general theory 
 1 : 34; 3 : 11 f., and giving as examples of displaced Logia 
 fragments in Mark, 2 : 28; 4 : 22, 24 b ; 8 : 34 f., 38 s ; 9 : 37, 
 41-50; 10: 11, 15, 38", 39 b ; 11:22-25; I2:38 b , 39; 
 13 :9-!3> 21-23, 33-375 !4= 2 5 (?)■ To these must be 
 added 3: 22-30, an extract — to judge from its less com- 
 plete form and anachronistic position — from the source 
 employed in Mt. 12:22-32 {duplicate in 9:32-34) = 
 Lk. 11 : 14-22; 12: 10. In Mark its position is prema- 
 ture (see B. Weiss, Markusevang., ad loc), as appears 
 from the reference to the delegation from Jerusalem 
 (7 : 1-2) in v. 22, and in v. 23 to the parabolic teaching 
 to which we are first introduced in 4:2. It appears to 
 
Appendix C 213 
 
 26 And if Satan is casting out Satan he is di- 
 vided against himself; 
 how then shall his kingdom stand? 
 
 be inserted at this point in the narrative to palliate the 
 sin of Jesus' mother and brethren, who came to lay hands 
 on Jesus, saying, " he is beside himself," a venial offence 
 of ignorance, by contrasting the " sin which hath never 
 forgiveness " of " the scribes from Jerusalem." But it is 
 the more inappropriate to a chronological narrative at 
 this point because the incident of the mother and breth- 
 ren is itself already an unchronological appendix to the 
 section on the choosing of the Twelve, 3 : 7-1 5% which has 
 first been supplemented by a list of the twelve names, 
 very awkwardly attached, next by the incident of the 
 mother and brethren, doubtless for the sake of the saying 
 3 : 34~35> on tne disciples as spiritual brethren who take 
 the place of earthly kin, and finally by the contrasted inci- 
 dent of the blasphemy of the scribes, 3 : 22-30. At what 
 period in the unknown history of our second gospel this 
 intercalation was made is a difficult problem, but certainly 
 before it was utilized by either Matthew or Luke, since 
 both show its effect (cf. Mt. 12:46-50; Lk. 8: 19-21). 
 
 It is not improbable that the series of events related 
 in Mk. 8:22 b -26; 7:32-37; 8: 1-10, 11-13, 14-21, since 
 it is so closely paralleled by 6 : 30-56; 7: 1-31, 27-33, 
 and in the other gospels, may have once included the 
 substance of 3: 22-30 between 8: 10 and 11. As it is, 
 Mk. 3 : 22-30 is simply a third form of the Logian ver- 
 sion more fully given in Matthew and Luke. The 
 Markan tradition only conies in independently for the 
 later discourses of the day. 
 
214 Appendix C 
 
 (2) By Whom do your Sons exorcise ? 
 Mt. 12: 27-28 = Lk. 11 : 19-20 
 
 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons 
 by whom do your sons cast them out ; 
 [therefore let them be your judges?] 
 
 28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons 
 then has the kingdom of God come unto 
 
 you. 
 
 (3) Taking the Spoil of the Strong Man armed 
 Mt. 12: 29 = Mk. 3: 27 = Lk. 11 : 21-22 
 
 29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house 
 and carry off his possessions, 
 
 unless first he have bound the strong man, 
 and then he will carry off his household as 
 spoil. 
 
 (4) Decide for Friendship or Enmity 
 
 Mt. 12: 30 = Lk. II : 23 
 
 30 He that is not with me is against me ; 
 
 and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. 
 
 (5) Blasphemy of God's Spirit an Abiding Sin 
 
 Mt. 12 : 31-32 = Mk. 3 : 28-30 = Lk. 12 : 10 = 
 
 Jn. 9:39-41 
 
 31 Therefore I declare unto you, 
 
 All (other) sin and blasphemy shall be for- 
 given unto men 
 
 
Appendix C 215 
 
 but blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be for- 
 given. 
 32 And whoso speaketh a word against the Son 
 of Man 
 
 it shall be forgiven him ; 
 
 but whoso speaketh against the Holy Spirit, 
 
 it shall neither be forgiven him in this world, 
 nor in that which is to come. 
 
 33* * * * * * ** 
 
 (6) The Evil Word shall bring into Judgment 
 
 Mt. 12:34, 36-37 
 
 34 Ye brood of vipers, how can ye, evil as ye 
 are, speak good things? 
 For out of the overflowing of the heart the 
 
 mouth speaketh 
 
 35* * * * * * * + 
 
 36 But I tell you that for every idle word that 
 men speak 
 
 * Verses 33 (" Make the tree good or evil ") and 35 
 (The good man bringing forth good) are duplicates of 
 Mt. 7:10 = Lk. 6 : 43 and of Lk. 6 : 45 s respectively. 
 See Appendix A (10), p. 1 61-166, and compare Luke. 
 Their true place appears to be the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 f See the preceding note. These added logia of Mat- 
 thew 12: 33-37 which do not appear in the parallels are 
 of decidedly doubtful originality in the connection, espe- 
 cially as they partake largely of the nature of current 
 maxims and show affinity with foreign material (with 
 34 1 cf. Mt. 3:7). 
 
216 Appendix C 
 
 they shall render account in the day of 
 judgment. 
 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified 
 and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. 
 
 IV. Second Discourse of the Crisis and 
 Rejection in Galilee. Jesus is taken to 
 Task for Disregard of the Traditions, and 
 openly breaks with Scribes and Pharisees 
 
 Occasion 
 At the midday meal in a Pharisee's house Jesus 
 and his disciples provoke attack by neglecting 
 the ablutions. 
 
 Lk. II : 37-38 = Mk. 7:1-5= Mt. 15 : 1-2 
 
 Lk. 11 37 Now as he was speaking a Phari- 
 see asked him to take lunch at his house. 
 Mk. 7 'And the Pharisees gathered unto him, 
 and certain scribes which had come from Jeru- 
 salem.* 2 And seeing certain disciples of his to 
 
 * This delegation of scribes from Jerusalem was a 
 matter of no small importance. It is indeed only Mark 
 who appreciates this, these scribes in Matthew and Luke 
 being either altogether lost to sight behind the habitual 
 antagonists of Jesus, the Pharisees, as in Mt. 9:34; 
 12: 24; Lk. 11 : 15, or losing their identity in the more 
 general expression of Mt. 15:1, "scribes and Pharisees" 
 
Appendix C 217 
 
 be eating bread with common, that is unwashed 
 hands — 3 for the Pharisees and all the Jews will 
 
 (cf. 23: 2, 13, 15) ; but the overwhelming effect of their 
 authoritative verdict on Jesus' following shows their im- 
 portance. It was a particular visit to Galilee of certain 
 great Jerusalem authorities, and the attributing of the 
 miracles of Jesus to collusion with Satan was surely their 
 work, as Mark declares (3:22), although, as we have 
 seen, the separation of 3 : 22-30 from 7 : 1-24 is certainly 
 unchronological. As Mk. 7 : I is clearly the first men- 
 tion of this delegation, and there are no traces of 3 : 22- 
 30 having been removed from chapter 7, it is probable 
 that this account (Mk. 6:30-7:31; 8:34-35; 9:2-10), 
 which passes directly from the Feeding of the Multitude 
 (5000) and Walking on the Sea to the controversy on 
 Neglect of the Ablutions, with only a general reference 
 to the Miracles of Healing (Matthew, however, empha- 
 sizing in particular "the blind and the dumb"), thence 
 to the Exile and Revelation of Peter, and is paralleled 
 by Mt. 14: 13-15:29/; 10:32,33,39; 17: 1-13, had no 
 account of the discourse of the morning. It is clearly a 
 Markan source of Petrine type, but may perhaps have 
 been known to Matthew in independent form, since the 
 Matthsean version adds important and sometimes appar- 
 ently original traits (Mt. 14: 28-31; 15: 12-15, 2 3~ 2 S)- 
 Luke's cancellations may perhaps be similarly accounted 
 for. But this account of the Crisis in Galilee is not the 
 only one employed by Mark, nor indeed would it seem 
 the more original. Let it be designated Mark B, and 
 alongside it we shall have Mark A, i.e. 8 : 22 b -26; 7 : 32- 
 37; 8: 1-22", 27-38; 9: 1, n-13, a narrative which re- 
 
218 Appendix C 
 
 not eat unless they have punctiliously ( ?) washed 
 their hands, in observance of the tradition of the 
 elders ; 4 and when they come from the market- 
 place they will not eat without washing, and 
 they have many other traditional observances, 
 washings of cups and pans and kettles — 5 and 
 the Pharisees and scribes ask him, Why do not 
 thy disciples walk according to the tradition of 
 the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? 
 
 Jesus' Reply and Counter-Accusation 
 
 (i) The True Purification of Meats 
 Lk. II : 39-41 = Mt. 23 : 25-26 
 Lk. 11 39 And the Lord said unto him * : — 
 Now do ye Pharisees purify the outside of 
 cup and platter, but the inside of you t is 
 
 latcs in more specific form the Healings of the Blind and 
 Dumb, then the Feeding of the Multitude (4000), com- 
 ing to Gennesaret and Conflict with the Pharisees, then 
 the Flight and Exile and Revelation of Peter, but dwells 
 upon other features. Both A and B have passed over 
 into Matthew, practically without cancellation, but Luke 
 and John exercise discrimination in different ways, by se- 
 lection and cancellation of the more obvious duplicates. 
 
 * According to Luke it was the particular Pharisee 
 who was Jesus' host that put the question. 
 
 t Text " of you." This is a manifest misunderstanding 
 (occasioned perhaps by v. 4^). It is the dishes (so 
 
Appendix C 219 
 
 full of robbery and extortion. ^ Simple- 
 tons, did not he who made the outside 
 make the inside as well? ^But give the 
 contents for alms, and lo, all things are 
 purified for you. 
 
 (2) The Ordinances of the Scribes nullify the 
 Word of God 
 
 Mk. 7 : 6-13 = Mt. 15 : 3-9 
 
 Mk. 7 6 But he said unto them : — 
 
 Well did Isaiah prophesy regarding you 
 hypocrites, as it is written, " This people 
 honoreth me with their lips, but their heart 
 is far from me. 7 But in vain do they wor- 
 ship me, teaching as their doctrines the 
 ordinances of men." 8 Ye forsake the com- 
 mandment of God, and hold to the tradi- 
 tion of men. 
 
 Matthew) which contain the robbery and wickedness 
 (Matthew, "extortion"), not the men; for the Semitic 
 idiom substitutes the abstract for the concrete, as in Am. 
 3 : 10, princes " who store up violence ami robbery," i.e. 
 the fruits of violence and robbery, in their palaces. To 
 really purify this food the contents should be restored to 
 the poor in alms, as was done by Zacchaeus, Lk. 19:8; 
 then what remained might be counted " pure." This is 
 a spiritualizing application of the ceremonial law charac- 
 teristic not only of Jesus, but of the broader piety of men 
 of his class in this age (cf. Mk. 12: 32). 
 
220 Appendix C 
 
 9 And he said unto them : — 
 Full well do ye make void the command- 
 ment of God that ye may keep your own 
 tradition. 10 For Moses said, " Honor thy 
 father and thy mother," and, " He that 
 slandereth father or mother, let him surely 
 be put to death." "But ye say : If a man 
 say to father or mother, Whatever income 
 you might have from my wages is korban, 
 that is, dedicated to the temple treasury, 
 12 you do not allow him to do any more 
 work for his father or his mother, 13 thus 
 nullifying the word of God by your tradi- 
 tion which ye have handed down. And 
 there are many like things which ye do. 
 
 (3) J^sus sweeps away All Distinctions of 
 Meats 
 Mk. 7 : 14-23 = Mt. 15 : 10-20 
 Mk. 7 "And he called up again the multitude 
 and said to them : — 
 
 16 Hear me all of you and understand. 
 There is nothing from outside a man that 
 by passing into him can make him ' im- 
 pure ' ; but it is the things that are from 
 within a man that make the man ' impure.' 
 
 17 Now when he had come into the house, 
 away from the multitude, his disciples asked 
 
Appendix C 221 
 
 him the meaning of the parable. 18 And he saith 
 to them, "Are you also such simpletons?" Do ■ Lk. 11:40. 
 you not perceive that nothing that enters into 
 a man from without can make him impure? 
 19 Because it does not penetrate to his soul, but 
 goes into his belly and is thrown off into the 
 drain." He thus pronounced all kinds of food 
 to be ' pure.' And he went on to say, " What 
 makes the man impure is that which issues from 
 him. 21 For it is from within, out of men's souls 
 that come forth malicious designs, fornication, 
 theft, murder, s adultery, concupiscence, wicked- 
 ness, fraud, licentiousness, an evil eye, 6 bias- * Lk. 11:34. 
 phemy, arrogance, folly. ^All these wicked < Mk. 3:22. 
 things come forth from within, and these make 
 the man impure. " * 
 
 * The explanation of the parable is introduced out of 
 chronological order precisely as in Mk. 4: 10-13, and 
 with just the same formula. In fact later private ex- 
 planation appears to be a special device of Mark (cf. 
 9:33; 10: 10; 11:20). Accordingly our typographi- 
 cal system requires that this portion be printed in 
 the same manner as the evangelist's explanations and 
 comments, although it embodies words of Jesus, perhaps 
 even an allusion (v. 22 b ) to the blasphemy of the scribes. 
 But the principal discourse must be supposed to be re- 
 sumed thereafter independently of the aside. 
 
222 Appendix C 
 
 (4) Jesus denounces Three Woes upon the 
 Pharisees 
 
 Lk. 1 1 : 42-44 = Mt. 23 : 23, 6-7 , 27-28 * 
 
 (i) "Woe to you Pharisees 
 
 because you pay tithes on mint and 
 
 rue and every garden herb 
 and pass by justice and the love of God. 
 These ye should have done, while ye 
 
 left not those undone. 
 
 (ii) 43 Woe to you Pharisees 
 
 because you love the place of honor in 
 
 the synagogues 
 and salutations in the market places. 
 
 (iii) 44 Woe to you 
 
 because you are like unmarked tombs f 
 and men that pass over them know it 
 not. 
 
 * Matthew incorrectly combines this Denunciation 
 uttered to the scribes and Pharisees with a much later 
 discourse of Jesus to his disciples, in which he warns 
 them against the spirit of the scribes and Pharisees, Mk. 
 12 : 38% 40 = Mt. 23 : 1-3 = Lk. 20 : 45-47. It is with 
 this latter that we should probably connect the fragment 
 from the Sermon on the Mount on How to Discriminate 
 between True and False Teachers, Mt. 7: I5~i6[20?j = 
 Lk. 6: 44. See Appendix A (10), p. 163. 
 
 t There seems to be a curious discrepancy in our two 
 reports of this saying. Both Mt. 23 : 27 and Lk. 1 1 : 44 
 
Appendix C 223 
 
 (5) He turns his Threefold Invective upon the 
 Scribes as well 
 
 Lk. 11 : 45-47[48-5i] = Mt. 23:4, 29-32, 14 
 Lk. 11 ^And one of the scribes answered 
 him and saith, Teacher, in saying these things 
 thou art insulting even us. ** But he said : — 
 
 (i) Woe unto you scribes also ; 
 
 because ye lade men with burdens 
 heavy to bear 
 
 and yourselves will not touch the bur- 
 dens with one of your fingers. 
 
 (ii) 47 Woe unto you 
 
 because you build up tombs for the 
 prophets 
 
 compare the Pharisees to the sepulchres, and allude to 
 the custom of whitewashing them that the passer-by 
 might not unwittingly be ceremonially contaminated. 
 But in Matthew it is the whitcd sepulchre to which the 
 Pharisee is compared, as "outwardly beautiful" (?) but 
 inwardly loathsome ; to which it may well be objected 
 that the object of the whitewashing was just the reverse 
 of making them appear beautiful. In Luke it is the ««- 
 whited sepulchre, by which the unwary are defiled with- 
 out knowing it. This paradoxical arraignment of the 
 professional " Puritan " of the day as a really defiling in- 
 fluence is perhaps not too strong to be genuine, and on 
 the whole preferable to the Matthsean form. 
 
224 Appendix C 
 
 and your own fathers put them to 
 death. 
 
 48 So you are witnesses for and give consent to 
 the works of your fathers, because they 
 killed them and you build their tombs. 
 49 On account of this "The Wisdom of 
 God " also saith : — 
 
 Mt. 23 ^ Behold, I send unto you prophets and 
 
 wise men and scribes. 
 Some of them ye will kill and crucify 
 and some of them ye will scourge in 
 
 your synagogues 
 and persecute from city to city. 
 86 That all the righteous blood shed upon 
 
 the earth 
 may come on your heads, 
 from the blood of Abel the just 
 to the blood of Zacharias son of Bara- 
 
 chias 
 whom ye slew between the temple and 
 
 the altar. 
 86 Of a truth I tell you, 
 All these things shall come upon this 
 
 generation. 
 
 87 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
 thou that killest the prophets 
 and stonest them that are sent unto thee, 
 how often would I fain have gathered 
 
 thy children 
 as a hen doth gather her chickens under 
 
 her wings 
 and ye would not. 
 88 Behold your house is left to you for- 
 saken ; 
 
Appendix C 225 
 
 89 for I tell you ye shall not see me hence- 
 forth 
 until ye shall say, Blessed is he that 
 cometh in the name of the Lord.* 
 
 * This quotation from an unknown writing of the 
 Iloqmah (Wisdom) literature shows itself to be an edi- 
 torial insertion by its interruption of the threefold woes 
 against the scribes, the scribes being rather, from its 
 point of view, one of the three types of messengers of 
 the divine Wisdom; for the Lucan form, "prophets and 
 apostles," is of course less original than the Matth«an 
 " prophets, wise-men and scribes." It is clear, too, that 
 the speaker in the fragment is, as Luke says, not Jesus, 
 but the Wisdom of God, which usually is the case in the 
 Wi.sdom Literature (Prov. 7-9). Personified as the re- 
 demptive agency of God she pleads with men, but pleads 
 in vain until the day of Messiah, when the house, forsaken 
 of God's presence now because of Israel's obduracy (cf. 
 I Esdr. 1 : 33), will be filled with his renewed presence 
 among a regenerate people. The adaptation of Ps. 91 : 4, 
 in v. 37, scarcely conceivable in the mouth of Jesus, is most 
 appropriate to Wisdom as the redemptive agency of God 
 (cf. Prov. 8:3-21). Still more may this be said of the 
 mournful announcement of withdrawal from the temple 
 until a time of repentant welcome, in vv. 38-39. It is only 
 the ecclesiastical identification of Jesus with the Wisdom 
 of God, early as this was (cf. I Cor. I : 24; 2 : 6-16), which 
 permitted the placing of this quotation in a direct sense 
 in the mouth of Jesus. In Luke fortunately the original 
 speaker is still unobscured, though the fragment is divided 
 between u : 49-51 and 13: 34-35 and otherwise altered. 
 
 Q 
 
226 Appendix C 
 
 (iii) 52 Woe unto you scribes 
 
 because ye have taken away the key of 
 
 knowledge. 
 Ye enter not in yourselves 
 And them that would enter in ye hinder. 
 
 (6) A Further Denunciation of Scribal 
 
 Casuistry* 
 
 Mt. 23 : 15-22, 24 
 
 Mt. 23 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
 hypocrites ; 
 because ye make the circuit of sea 
 and land to gain one proselyte, 
 
 * The number of seven woes made up by Matthew is 
 clearly factitious, like his series of ten miracles in chap- 
 ters 8-9, and seven parables in chapter 13, or the seven 
 " signs " or seven " I am " parables of the fourth gospel. 
 The six " woes" of Is. 5 : 8-24 need not have been in the 
 mind either of Jesus or the evangelists, a threefold form 
 is natural in itself and is repeatedly employed by Jesus, 
 may even be called a favorite with him (e.g. Mt. 6 : 2-4, 
 5-6, 16-18; Mk. 9:43-48; Mt. 23:8-10), and in the 
 Lucan version of the denunciation we see such a three- 
 fold division, first three woes upon the Pharisees, then 
 three more upon the scribes. The primary difference in 
 the Matthrean form is in the obliteration of the distinc- 
 tion between such as were appropriate to the Pharisees, 
 who did not " sit in Moses' seat " (Mt. 23 : 2), nor " bind 
 heavy burdens" (v. n), nor "take away the key of 
 knowledge" (v. 13), since not they but the scribes were 
 
Appendix C 227 
 
 and when he is won ye make him 
 twofold more a son of perdition 
 than yourselves. 
 
 the teachers ; and such as were appropriate to the 
 scribes, who were not characterized by a punctilious 
 scrupulosity of performance such as characterized their 
 slavish pupils, the Pharisees. By lumping "scribes and 
 Pharisees " together in the general formula " scribes 
 and Pharisees, hypocrites," the double series of threes 
 becomes simply a sequence of six, which there was 
 strong temptation to expand to the favorite number 
 seven, as in the case of the parables (chapter 13). 
 
 But the process has been complicated in two ways. 
 (1) Instead of the first Lucan "woe " against the scribes 
 we find a reference to the Jewish propaganda in all 
 lands, whereas the material of the woe serves as an ep- 
 exegetical addition to the warning not to imitate the 
 scribes in their life (Mt. 23: 3). The substitution is by 
 no means happy, but as to the source of the substitute, 
 v. 15, we have no clew. (2) To make up the desired 
 seven woes two different methods have been followed in 
 different texts, (a) Verses 16-22, which Blass brackets 
 in his edition of 1901, on the ground of omission by 
 Chrysostom and the internal evidence, are certainly no 
 part of the original denunciation, as appears both from the 
 introductory formula and from the strophic form ; but 
 the evidence for excluding them from the canonical Mat- 
 thew is very weak, and even the occasion of their original 
 utterance may have been the same. (?>) Certain other 
 inferior authorities, either because the absence of verses 
 16-22 made the supply of a seventh woe seem necessary, 
 
228 Appendix C 
 
 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides 
 which say, Whoso sweareth by the 
 
 sanctuary it is nothing, 
 But whoso sweareth by the gold of 
 the sanctuary is bound by his oath. 
 
 17 Ye fools and blind ; 
 
 for which is greater, the gold, or the 
 sanctuary that made the gold holy? 
 
 or because the difference in the introductory formula 
 seemed to exclude 16 ff. from the count, introduce verse 
 14, a " woe " made up from Mk. 12 : 40. 
 
 In a word the confusion produced by Matthew in the 
 Galilean twofold triple denunciation seems to be clue to 
 the attempt to combine it with another discourse, or two 
 other discourses, unknown outside of Mt. 23, the whole 
 in combination being framed to produce a series of seven 
 woes against the " hypocrites " of orthodox Judaism. 
 Whether part of this foreign material came in, as Blass 
 conjectures, subsequently to the publication of our 
 canonical gospel, or whether, as our use of uniform type 
 implies, our evangelist himself made the combination, 
 omitting to conform the introductory formula of v. 16 to 
 *3> ^St 2 3> 2 5i 2 7> an( l 2 9 on ly because he was not aim- 
 ing at a series of seven, but only to reproduce the two 
 threes of his model, is a subordinate question. The 
 above, however, will represent the principal elements of 
 fact in a discussion of The Seven Woes of Matthew's 
 Gospel which has come to hand since this volume was 
 sent to press, viz., the Appendix having this title in The 
 Messages of Jesus according to the Syuoptists, by Thomas 
 C. Hall, D.D., Scribner's Sons, 1901. 
 
appendix C 229 
 
 18 And again, Whoso sweareth by the 
 
 altar, it is nothing ; 
 but whoso sweareth by the gift that 
 is on the altar is bound by his oath. 
 
 19 Ye blind ; for which is greater, the 
 
 gift, or the altar that makes the 
 gift holy ? * 
 
 20 He, then, who sweareth by the altar 
 sweareth by it, and by all the things 
 
 on it, 
 
 21 And he who sweareth by the sanctuary 
 sweareth by it, and by Him who in- 
 
 habiteth it, 
 22 And he that sweareth by heaven 
 sweareth by the throne of God, and 
 
 by Him that sitteth upon it. 
 24 Ye blind guides, which filter out a 
 
 gnat, and swallow a camel ! t 
 
 * For the literary structure compare the twofold illus- 
 trations of scribal righteousness in the Sermon on the 
 Mount, Mt. 5: 21-22, 27-28, 31-32. Also with the gen- 
 eral statement verse 15, followed by 16, iS, and 20-22, 
 each ending with the refrain 17, 19, 24, compare Mt. 
 6:1, 2-4, 5-6, 16-18. 
 
 f That portion of Mt. 23 which is found nowhere else 
 seems to firm a discourse against the scribes for their 
 false casuistry. Of 16-22 we have spoken. Verses 15 
 and 24 seem to be connected. " Blind guides " re- 
 calls Mt. 15 : 14. 
 
230 Appendix C 
 
 Jesus reiterates in Private to the Twelve his Re- 
 pudiation of the Scribes and their Traditions 
 
 The * Hedge of the Law ' shall be rooted up 
 
 Mt. 15 : 12-13 
 Mt. 15 12 Then the disciples came near and 
 say unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees 
 when they heard that saying* were scandalized? 
 13 But he answered and said : — 
 
 Every plant which my heavenly Father hath 
 not planted shall be rooted up. 
 
 Blindness of Soul Fatal and Incurable 
 
 Mt. 15:14; 6 : 22-23 = Lk. 6 : 39 ; ":34"35L36] = 
 Jn. 9:39-41 ; 10 : 1-6 
 
 Mt. 15 14 Let them alone; they are blind 
 23 : 24. leaders of the blind ■ ; but if the blind lead 
 
 the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 
 
 * The reference in the context is to the revolutionary 
 utterance by which Jesus, as our second evangelist re- 
 marks, had swept away the Mosaic distinctions of clean 
 and unclean meats. The disciples now somewhat timidly 
 inquire if Jesus realizes the effect of his utterances on 
 the religious authorities. The occasion is by Matthew 
 made the same as that when the disciples (Mt., " Peter") 
 ask an explanation of the saying, and this is doubtless 
 correct but as the Markan form is clearly the more 
 original, we have permitted the digression to stand in 
 the unchronological Markan order (see above, p. 221). 
 
Appendix C 23 1 
 
 6 ^The lamp of the body is the eye ; if thine 
 eye be pure thy whole body shall be lit up. 
 23 But if thine eye be false," thy whole body <* Mk. 7:22; 
 shall be dark. If, therefore, the very light 3 : 22 - 
 that is in thee be darkness, how great is 
 the darkness.* 
 
 V. Third Discourse of the Crisis in Galilee. 
 
 The Scribes and Pharisees demand a Sign 
 
 from Heaven _ 
 
 Occasion 
 
 After coming out from the scene of contro- 
 versy in the Pharisee's house, the scribes and 
 Pharisees meet Jesus with violent opposition. 
 Lk. 11 : 53-12: 1 (duplicate n : 29') 
 
 Lk. 11 ^And when he came out thence 
 the scribes and Pharisees began to press him 
 violently, and to cross-examine him on many 
 points, lying in wait for him to seize some word 
 from his lips. 
 
 * This passage from the Matthnean Sermon on the 
 Mount appears from the setting of the parallels in Luke 
 and John to have been uttered on occasion of the blas- 
 phemous insinuation of the Jerusalem scribes. V. 23 
 thus appears in the light of an explanation of the awful 
 utterance about the sin that hath never forgiveness, and is 
 a further link to connect it with the denunciation of the 
 blind leaders of the blind, and the warning against an 
 " evil eye." See Appendix A (8), p. 150. 
 
232 Appendix C 
 
 They demand a Sign from Heaven 
 
 Mt. 12 : 38 (duplicate 16 : 1) = Mk. 8 : II = Lk. II : 16 
 = Jn. 6 : 30-31 
 
 Mt. 12 38 Then certain of the scribes and 
 Pharisees answered him saying, Teacher, we 
 would see a sign from thee. 
 
 Jesus' Reply : The Sign of Jonah 
 
 Mt. 12: 39-42 (duplicate 16: 2-4) = Mk. 8 : 12 = Lk. 
 II: 29-31 
 
 Mt. 12 "But he answered and said unto 
 them : — 
 
 A wicked and adulterous generation 
 
 seeketh after a sign 
 
 and no sign shall be given it 
 
 save the sign of Jonah the prophet. 
 
 40 For like as Jonah was in Lk. 1 1 30 For just as Jonah 
 
 the seamonster's belly was himself a 
 
 three days and three sign to the men 
 
 nights of Nineveh, 
 
 so shall the Son of Man so shall the Son of 
 
 be in the heart of the Man be to this 
 
 earth three days and generation.* 
 three nights. 
 
 * The parallel explanations of " the sign of Jonah " 
 above given are both absent from the alternate version, 
 Mk. 8: 11-12 = Mt. 16: 1-4. That of Luke 11 : 30 has 
 at least the merit of being conceivably correct, since it 
 agrees with the facts of the O. T. narrative, whereiri 
 
Appendix C 233 
 
 41 The men of Nineveh shall arise in the judg- 
 ment 
 together with this generation 
 and shall condemn it ; 
 for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, 
 and lo, a greater matter than Jonah is here. 
 
 Jonah's preaching to the Ninevites is peculiarly charac- 
 terized by the very fact that they neither ask nor receive 
 miraculous authentication of his exhortation and warn- 
 ing, and further agrees with its own context (v. 32) in 
 which Jesus points out this contrast with the generation 
 that demands a sign. That of Mt. 12:40 is absolutely 
 excluded by its contradiction of the context, missing the 
 real point of comparison, and substituting the trivial and 
 inapposite one of the three (?) days of Jesus' lying in 
 the grave. But in my judgment the most genuine form 
 of the tradition is that which excludes both, both being 
 attempts of later reporters to explain this enigmatic say- 
 ing of Jesus. In point of fact Jesus did believe that one 
 great sign had been given, but had remained unobserved 
 because the adulterous generation was blind to divine 
 portents in its craze for superstition (Lk. 17:20-21). 
 Elias, whose coming to prepare Israel by repentance for 
 the great " day of Jehovah " was God's appointed sign of 
 the Son of Man, had come, " and they did unto him as 
 they listed." It was shortly after this that the disciples 
 learned from Jesus' lips how deep a significance he at- 
 tached to the appearance and fate of John the Baptist 
 (Mk. 9 : 13). Now the succeeding context, Mt. 12 : 41- 
 42, accuses this wicked generation of a twofold obduracy 
 put to shame by the very heathen of the O. T. They 
 
234 Appendix C 
 
 42 The Queen of the South shall arise in the 
 judgment 
 together with this generation 
 and shall condemn it ; 
 for she came from the ends of the earth 
 
 have rejected a great proclamation of repentance like 
 that of Jonah though the men of Nineveh did not, and 
 they have also rejected the winning entreaty of the 
 divine wisdom (see above, p. 225, note on the Jewish con- 
 ception of ' wisdom ' as the redemptive agency of God's 
 fatherly love), though the Queen of Sheba did not. It is 
 possible that in both cases Jesus was referring to his own 
 preaching; but (1) the enigmatic reference to the 
 former as a "sign," (2) the analogy of other passages in 
 which Jesus couples together their treatment of John the 
 Baptist and himself (Mt. 11:16-19, I 7 :I °- I 3; Lk. 
 7 : 29-30) and declares John greater than all earlier 
 prophets (Lk. 7 : 24-28), and (3) the contrast so bold a 
 reference to himself as greater than Jonah and Solomon 
 would present to Jesus' invariable reserve regarding his 
 own personality in public address, suggest rather that 
 only the latter of the two comparisons refers to his own 
 preaching, the former referring to the Baptist's message 
 of repentance so like that of Jonah. This view is further 
 corroborated by the admirable appropriateness which 
 then appears in the succeeding context of Matthew, the 
 Parable of the House Swept and Garnished, whose appli- 
 cation is expressly declared to be to "this evil genera- 
 tion." It had seemed to purge itself at the preaching of 
 the Baptist, but did not a-lmit God's Spirit, the rightful 
 tenant, when He came to His abode. 
 
Appendix C 235 
 
 to hear the wisdom of Solomon 
 and lo, a greater matter than Solomon is 
 here.* 
 
 Parable of the House Swept and Garnished 
 
 Mt. 12 : 43-45 = Lk. 1 1 : 24-26 
 
 Mt. 12 ^ Whenever an unclean spirit goes out 
 from a man, it passes through arid places seek- 
 ing for rest and findeth none. '"Then it saith, I 
 will return unto my abode whence I came 
 forth ; and it cometh and findeth it empty and 
 swept and garnished. 4i Then it goeth and 
 taketh to itself seven other spirits worse than 
 itself, and they come in and take up their abode 
 there, and the last state of that man becomes 
 worse than the first. So shall it be also unto 
 this wicked generation.! 
 
 * I.e. the gracious call of God extended through Jesus 
 to repentant sinners. 
 
 t Matthew is clearly correct in regarding this parable 
 as applying to the wicked generation purged by the bap- 
 tism of John but untenanted by the Spirit sent with the 
 Messiah, and not, with Luke, as a mere comparison of 
 the permanence of Jesus' exorcisms with those of the 
 Pharisees. But this being so it can hardly be otherwise 
 than part of the extended discourse which Matthew gives 
 as preceding. 
 
236 Appendix C 
 
 Spiritual Kindred ; an Episode and Saying 
 
 Mk. 3: 20-21, 31-32 = Mt. 12: 46-50 = Lk. 8: 19-21 
 {duplicate, I 1 : 27-28) 
 
 Mk. 3 ^[And he cometh home; and the 
 crowd cometh together again so that they could 
 not even eat bread. 21 And when his kindred 
 heard it they went forth to lay hands on him, for 
 they said to themselves, He is beside himself 
 * * *].* And there come his mother and his 
 brethren, and standing outside they sent a mes- 
 sage to him calling him forth. 32 And a crowd 
 was sitting around him, and they tell him, Lo, 
 thy mother and thy brethren are outside asking 
 for thee. Lk. 11 ^ [And it came to pass as he 
 
 * This description probably refers to the same scene 
 as described above (p. 231) in the language of Lk. 
 II : 53-12: 1. Mark appends the story to his account 
 of the choosing of the Twelve for the sake of the say- 
 ing, " My mother and brethren are they that hear," etc. 
 Matthew and Luke omit this introduction. Between 21 
 and 31 Mark again inserts the blasphemy of the scribes, 
 thus making it a foil for the venial sin of Jesus' mother 
 and brethren, who said only f^etrnv. But the logian 
 version of the saying in Lk. 11 .-27, widely as it varies 
 from the Markan, which Luke repeats in 8: 19-21, is 
 close enough to prove identity, and this also is connected 
 (perhaps improperly) with the same occasion. Mark's 
 displacement, accordingly, is but slight. 
 
Appendix C 2}7 
 
 was saying these things]* a certain woman out 
 of the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, 
 Blessed is the womb that bare thee and the 
 breasts which thou didst suck. ^But he said, 
 Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word 
 of God and keep it. 
 
 Mk. 3 M And looking round on those who 
 were sitting in a circle about him he saith, Be- 
 hold my mother and my brethren. 
 
 VI. Fourth Discourse of the Galilean Crisis 
 Jesus warns against the Leaven (Bread) 
 of the Pharisees 
 
 Mk. 8: 13-21 = Mt. 16: 5-12= Lk. 12: 1 =Jn. 6: 30-35 
 
 Occasion 
 
 Mk. 8 "And he left them f and entering again 
 into the boat he departed to the other side. 
 
 * The reference is to the parable of the House Swept 
 and Garnished, but the woman's ejaculation is occasioned 
 — if we may judge by what Mark relates of the occasion 
 of the logion — by the message that Jesus' mother was 
 outside. 
 
 t The reference is to the Pharisees who had demanded 
 the Sign from Heaven, this one of Mark's sources hav- 
 ing nothing more to tell of the crisis than the simple 
 fact of the demand and Jesus' refusal, Mk. 8: 10-13. 
 
238 Appendix C 
 
 14 And they had forgotten to take bread, and 
 had no more than a single loaf with them in the 
 boat. 15 And he was charging them, saying, 
 "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Phari- 
 sees, and of the leaven of Herod." * 16 And they 
 were debating with one another, " It is because 
 we have no bread." " And when he perceived 
 it he saith unto them : — 
 
 Why are ye in debate because ye have no 
 bread ? 
 
 Do ye not yet perceive nor understand? 
 
 Have ye your heart made callous? 
 
 18 Having eyes see ye not, 
 and having ears hear ye not? 
 And do ye not remember 
 
 19 when I brake the five loaves among the five 
 
 thousand 
 
 * The warning against the teaching of the Pharisees 
 under the simile of bread (Mt. 16: 12), following as it 
 does upon the Feeding of the Multitude, Messianic Mur- 
 murs, and Demand of a Sign from Heaven, has its 
 counterpart in the Discourse on the True Bread from 
 Heaven in John. Luke also (12: 1) has the bare state- 
 ment that this parabolic warning was given at this time. 
 But the Synoptic narrative, while suggesting the possi- 
 bility of some extended discourse on this subject, con- 
 cerns itself only with the concluding words of Jesus when 
 in the boat he rebuked his disciples for their lack of 
 insight and lack of faith. 
 
Appendix C 239 
 
 how many hampers full of broken pieces ye 
 took up? 
 
 20 They say unto him, Twelve. 
 
 And when the seven among the four thousand 
 how many baskets full of broken pieces took 
 ye up?* 
 
 21 And they say unto him, Seven. 
 And he said unto them 
 
 Do ye not yet understand? 
 224 And they come unto Bethsaida. 
 
 VII. Warnings of Impending Judgment 
 
 Sayings principally reported in Lk. 12: 35-13: 35 
 (1) On the Futility of Dependence on Privilege 
 
 Occasion 
 
 Lk. 13: 22-23 
 
 Lk. 13 22 And he was passing through cities 
 
 and villages, teaching and journeying on toward 
 
 Jerusalem. 23 And a certain man said to him, 
 
 Lord, are those that are saved few in number? 
 
 * The compiler of our second gospel here combines 
 the two versions of the Feeding of the Multitude. From 
 the connection it would appear to be the version of 
 8: 1-10 {Four thousand) with which the passage was 
 originally connected. 
 
240 Appendix C 
 
 Parable of the Narrow Door 
 Lk. 13: 24 = Mt. 7: 13-14 
 And he said unto them : — 
 
 24 Strive hard to enter by the narrow 
 
 door, 
 for many, I tell you, will seek to 
 
 enter in 
 and will not be able. 
 
 Mt. 7 13 For wide is the gate and spacious the 
 way 
 that leadeth to destruction 
 and many are they that pass in by it. 
 
 "For narrow is the gate and strait- 
 Acts 14 : 22. ened a the way 
 
 that leadeth unto life 
 
 and few are they that find it. 
 
 Many who claim a Place in the Kingdom will 
 be Rejected 
 
 Mt. 7 : 21-23 = Lk. 13 : 26-27 * 
 
 Mt. 7 21 Not everyone that saith unto me 
 Lord, Lord, 
 shall enter into the kingdom of God, 
 
 * While it is quite clear that this logion is out of place in 
 the Sermon on the Mount (see Appendix A (11), p. 166), 
 
Appendix C 241 
 
 but he that doeth the will of my 
 Father which is in heaven. 
 22 Many will say (to the king) in that 
 day, 
 Lk. 13 26 We did eat and drink in thy presence 
 and thou didst teach* (?) in our 
 streets ; 
 
 especially in the Matthrean form, which makes it apply 
 to false teachers in the church (7:22, contrast Lk. 
 13: 26), it is much less easy to assign it its true position. 
 True the occasion is well defined in Lk. 13: 22-24, but 
 warnings of judgment to come must have been a con- 
 stant feature in the preaching of Jesus (Mk. 1 : 15), and 
 there are utterances with which the present might seem 
 to have a closer relation than with the Lucan context ; 
 for example, the Dirge upon the Galilean Cities reported 
 by both Luke (10 : 13-16) and Matthew (11 : 20-24) in 
 connection with the Mission of the Disciples in Galilee 
 (cf. Lk. 13: 26 with 10: 13). The combined authority 
 of Matthew and Luke forbids our transferring hither the 
 Dirge, appropriately as it might lead in the question, Lk. 
 13: 23, and subsequent discourse We prefer to remain 
 in doubt as to an original relation between the elements 
 of Lk. 13:22-30. In particular Lk. 13:30 has better 
 connection in Mt. 19 : 30 ; 20 : 16, and the parable of the 
 Closed Door (v. 25 = Mt. 25: 1-13) is quite artificially 
 brought in. But Matthew should not have removed 
 verses 28-29 to place them after the story of the Be- 
 lieving Centurion (8: 1-10). 
 
 * The word " teach " reflects upon Jesus' own career. 
 " Walk " is more likely to have been the original. 
 R 
 
242 Appendix C 
 
 and he * will say, 
 I tell you I never knew you ; 
 begone from me all ye workers of 
 " Mt. 25 : 41. wickedness." 
 
 Abrahamic Descent a Worthless Dependence 
 
 Mt. 8: 11-12 = Lk. 13: 28-29 
 
 Mt. 8 u And I tell you that many shall come 
 from east and west and shall take their 
 places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac 
 and Jacob in the kingdom of God. ^But 
 the sons of the kingdom shall go forth into 
 the outer darkness ; there shall be weeping 
 * Mt. 24 : 51 ; and gnashing of teeth. 6 
 
 25 : 30. 
 
 *The Lucan form, which puts this judgment in the 
 mouth of the Messianic Judge spoken of in the third 
 person, is alone conceivable at any time previous to 
 Jesus' full revelation of his Messianic character. Even 
 then the " I " could only have been spoken in the inner 
 circle of the Twelve. It is indeed probable that these 
 parables of the judgment belong to the period subse- 
 quent to Caesarea Philippi, but even so the " I will say " 
 seems less probable in the mouth of Jesus. Besides this 
 the Matthaean form clearly shows adaptation to the con- 
 ditions of a church already troubled by false teachers. 
 We ventured also the opinion that the original utterance 
 will have had " walk " rather than " teach," the reference 
 of which to Jesus himself would have been so obvious. 
 
Appendix C 243 
 
 ( 2 ) Real Basis of the Messianic Judgment 
 
 Parable of the Shepherd dividing his Flock 
 
 Mt. 25:31-46 
 
 Mt. 25 31 But when the Son of Man shall come 
 in his giory and all the angels with 
 him, 
 then shall he sit upon his ' throne of 
 glory,' 
 3:! and all the nations shall be gathered 
 together before him, 
 and he shall separate them one man 
 
 from another, 
 as a shepherd separates sheep from 
 goats. 
 33 And he shall set the sheep on his 
 right hand, and the goats on his 
 left. 
 
 34 Then shall the king say to those on 
 
 his right hand, 
 
 Come ye that were blessed of my 
 Father, 
 
 inherit the kingdom that was pre- 
 pared for you from the foundation 
 of the world. 
 
 35 For I was hungry and ye gave me to 
 
 eat, 
 thirsty and ye gave me to drink, 
 a stranger and ye took me in, 
 
244 Appendix C 
 
 naked and ye clothed me, 
 I was sick and ye visited me, 
 in prison and ye came to me. 
 
 87 Then will the righteous answer him and say, 
 Sir, when did we see thee hungry and feed 
 
 thee, 
 or thirsty and give thee drink? 
 
 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and 
 
 took thee in, 
 or naked and clothed thee? 
 
 39 When did we see thee sick or in prison and 
 
 came to thee? 
 
 40 And the king will answer and say to them, 
 I tell you of a truth, 
 
 By so much as ye did it to one of these 
 
 brethren of mine, 
 these men of very small account, 
 ye did it to me." 
 
 41 Then will he speak to those on his left, 
 Begone from me, ye accurst, 
 
 into the everlasting fire prepared for the 
 Devil and his angels. 
 
 42 For I was hungry and ye gave me naught 
 
 to eat, 
 thirsty and ye gave me no drink, 
 
 43 a stranger and ye took me not in, 
 naked and ye clothed me not, 
 
 sick and in prison and ye visited me not. 
 
Appendix C 245 
 
 44 Then these too will answer and say, 
 
 Sir, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty, 
 or a stranger, or naked, 
 or sick, or in prison, 
 and did thee no service? 
 
 45 Then he will answer them, saying, 
 I tell you of a truth, 
 
 By so much as ye did it not to one of these 
 
 men of very small account, 
 ye also did it not to me. 
 
 46 And these shall go away into everlasting 
 
 punishment, 
 but the righteous into everlasting life. 
 
 A Connected Incident 
 
 Lk. 13 : 31-33 
 
 Lk. 13 31 At that same hour there came up 
 certain Pharisees and said to him, Depart, and 
 get away hence, for Herod desireth to kill thee. 
 32 And he said to them, Go, and tell that jackal : 
 Lo, I cast out demons and perform my healings 
 to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I 
 shall be through. ^But I must needs go on to- 
 day and to-morrow and the next day, for it can- 
 not be that a prophet should perish except in 
 Jerusalem. 
 
246 Appendix C 
 
 (3) Be Ready to give Account in the Judgment 
 
 Occasion 
 Lk. 17: 20 * 
 
 Lk.17 20a And being asked by the Pharisees 
 when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered 
 them and said : — 
 
 No Prognostication will avail to date the 
 Parousia 
 
 Lk. 17: 2o b -2i (= Mk. 13: 21 = Mt. 24: 23?) 
 
 Lk. 17 20b The kingdom of God cometh not 
 with taking of observations, neither shall 
 people say, Lo, here, or there. 21 For be- 
 hold, the kingdom of God is among you. 
 
 The Signs of the Times are Enough to prove it 
 
 Near 
 
 Lk. 12 : 54-56 = Mt. 16 : 2-3 (/3 text) 
 
 Lk. 12 54 Whenever ye see a cloud rising in 
 the west, 
 at once ye say, There is rain coming ; 
 and so it comes to pass. 
 "And whenever the south wind blows, 
 ye say, There will be scorching heat ; 
 and so it comes to pass. 
 66 Ye hypocrites, 
 
Appendix C 247 
 
 ye know how to take account of the 
 appearance of earth and heaven j 
 
 how is it that ye know not how to 
 take account of this epoch? 
 
 Be reconciled ere too Late with him who is 
 bringing his Suit against Israel 
 
 Lk. 12 : 57-59 = Mt. 5 : 25-26 
 
 Lk. 1 2 5; And why even of your own selves do 
 ye not judge what is right ? M For as thou 
 art going with him who is suing thee before 
 the magistrate, do thy utmost to effect a 
 settlement with him on the road, lest per- 
 haps he drag thee before the judge, and the 
 judge deliver thee to the sheriff and the 
 sheriff cast thee into prison. ra I tell thee, 
 Thou shalt never come out thence till thou 
 have paid the last farthing. 
 
 A Warning based on Current Events 
 Lk. 13: 1-5 
 
 Jesus told of the Fate 0/ Pilate's Victims 
 
 Occasion 
 
 Lk. 13 *And there were some present on that 
 same occasion who informed him concerning the 
 Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with 
 
248 Appendix C 
 
 that of their sacrifices. 2 And he answered and 
 said unto them : — 
 
 Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinful 
 beyond all the men of Galilee 
 because they suffered these things? 
 3 1 tell you, Nay, 
 but except ye repent 
 ye shall all perish in a like manner. 
 
 4 Or those eighteen 
 
 on whom the tower fell in Siloam and killed 
 them, 
 
 suppose ye that they were transgressors 
 
 beyond all the men that dwell in Jerusalem ? 
 6 1 tell you, Nay, 
 
 but except ye repent 
 
 ye shall all perish in a like manner. 
 
 Parable of the Barren Fig Tree 
 
 Lk. 13: 6-9 
 
 Lk. 13 6 And he spake this parable : — 
 
 A certain man had a fig tree planted in his 
 vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, 
 and found none. 7 And he said to the vine 
 dresser, See here, it is now three years that 
 I have come to seek fruit on this fig tree, 
 and I find none ; cut it down ; why should 
 it make the ground useless as well? "But 
 
Appendix C 249 
 
 he answered and said to him, Master, leave 
 it alone for this one year more, till I have 
 digged and put dung about it, 9 and if it 
 bear fruit thereafter, very well ; but if not, 
 cut it down.* 
 
 * The parable of the barren fig tree should not be 
 identified with the incident (Mk. II: 12-14, 2 °~ 2 5 — 
 Mt. 21 : 18-22), though Luke's omission of the latter is 
 doubtless for this reason, just as he omits Mk. 14: 3-9 in 
 view of Lk. 7 : 36-50. The incident, which properly 
 ends with Mk. 11:14 (compare Mt. 21 : 19) is too clearly 
 dated, and that in spite of the evangelist's consciousness 
 of the discrepancy in the season of year (Mk. 11 : I3 b ), 
 to allow it to be set aside. We may understand the oc- 
 currence as simply an application by Jesus of the methods 
 of prophetic symbolism (cf. Ez. 39 : 17). The precocious 
 promise of a fig tree thus early (March — April) in full 
 leaf, attracting his attention as he goes from Bethany 
 toward Jerusalem, he approaches, only to find it as barren 
 of the budding fruit as its flourishing appearance gave 
 reason to expect the contrary. The curse thereupon 
 pronounced has no reference to the tree, save as a type 
 and symbol of the outwardly promising, inwardly barren 
 Israel. Hence in its first form the story must have 
 ended with the utterance, " No man eat fruit of thee 
 henceforth forever." The rest is the work of our evan- 
 gelists, Matthew and Mark, who, each in his own way, 
 seek to piece out what they regard as an incomplete 
 account. Both assume a visible effect upon the tree, 
 Matthew instantly (Trapaxpyna, a Lucan word, not 
 found elsewhere in Matthew), Mark the next day; 
 
250 Appendix C 
 
 (4) Suddenness of the Parousia 
 
 The Day of the Lord will come like the Flood 
 
 Mt. 24: 37-39 = Lk. 17 : 26-27 
 
 Mt. 24 37 And as were the days of Noah 
 
 so shall be the Coming of the Son 
 of Man. 
 38 For as people were in the days be- 
 fore the cataclysm 
 eating and drinking, marrying and 
 
 giving in marriage 
 until the day that Noah entered into 
 the ark, 
 39 and knew not until the flood came 
 and swept them all away ; 
 so shall be also the Coming of the 
 Son of Man. 
 
 and Mark further attaches two logia, one (Mk. 11 : 22- 
 24) rightly located by Matthew in 17:20, the other 
 (11:25) located by Matthew no better than here in 
 6:14-15. Mk. 11:20-21 is editorial solder. If the 
 reader be indisposed to grant the possibility of both a 
 parable and, subsequently, an incident of a barren fig 
 tree, then it is far better to suppose that the parable has 
 been elaborated from the symbolic utterance, as some 
 derive Lk. 15: 11-32 from Mt. 21 : 28-31, or Mt. 25: I- 
 13 from Lk. 13:25, than vice versa. Mk. 11:12-14 
 must be accepted as historical. 
 
Appendix C 251 
 
 Or like the Judgment upon Sodom 
 
 Lk. 17: 28-30 
 
 Lk. 17 ^Just as it happened likewise in the 
 days of I ot. 
 They were eating, drinking, buying, 
 selling, planting, building. 
 
 29 But in the day that Lot went forth 
 
 out of Sodom 
 it rained fire and brimstone from 
 heaven and destroyed them all. 
 
 30 After the same manner shall it be in 
 
 the day when the Son of Man is 
 revealed. 
 
 One shall be taken, Another left 
 Mt. 24:40-41 = Lk. 17:34-35 
 
 Mt. 24 ''"Then shall there be two men in the 
 
 field ; 
 
 one shall be taken and the other left. 
 
 41 There shall be two women grinding 
 
 at the mill ; 
 
 one shall be taken and the other left. 
 
 Carrion calls its own Scavengers 
 
 Lk. 17 : 37 = Mt. 24: 28 
 
 Lk. 17 37 And they answered him and say, 
 Where, Lord? But he said unto them : — 
 
252 Appendix C 
 
 Wherever the carcase is 
 there the vultures will be gathered 
 together. 
 
 A Warning against False Alarms of the 
 Parous ia 
 
 Lk. 1 7 : 22 
 
 Lk. 17 22 And he said unto the disciples : — 
 Days will come when ye will long to 
 
 see one of the days of the Son of 
 
 Man 
 and ye shall not see it. 
 
 7'he Reality will admit no Mistake 
 
 Mt. 24 : 26-27 = Lk. 1 7 : 23-24 
 
 Mt. 24 26 If, therefore, they say to you, Lo, he 
 is in the wilderness, 
 go not forth ; 
 Lo, he is in his chambers, 
 believe it not. 
 27 For even as the lightning cometh 
 forth from the east and shineth 
 unto the west ; 
 so shall be the Parousia of the Son 
 of Man. 
 Lk. I 7 2a But first must he surfer many things and be 
 rejected of this generation. 
 
Appendix C 253 
 
 (5) Parables on being Ready for the Parousia 
 
 The Ten Virgins 
 
 Mt. 25: 1-12 = Lk. 12: 35-38; 13:25* 
 
 Mt. 25 lr rhen shall the kingdom of God be 
 likened to ten virgins which took their 
 lamps and went forth to meet the bride- 
 groom and the bride. t 2 And five of them 
 were foolish, and five prudent. 3 For the 
 foolish took their lamps, but took no oil 
 
 * We have seen above (p. 166), in connection with 
 Mt. 7 : 21-23 = Lk. I 3 :2 3~ 2 7> t' 1111 Lk. 13:25 is an 
 embellishment not originally part of the saying about 
 the narrow door. The figure of fruitless attempts to 
 enter the "door" of the kingdom leads to its introduc- 
 tion. We have here a parallel to Luke's treatment of 
 Mk. 14: 3-9 which he omits, though borrowing a trait or 
 two to embellish his own story of the Penitent Harlot 
 (7: 36-50; cf. verses 37 b , 38 b , 46, with Mark). It does 
 not necessarily follow that Mt. 25: 1-12 was known to 
 Luke otherwise than by oral tradition. In fact, the omis- 
 sion of a narrative so largely dependent for intelligibility 
 on knowledge of Oriental customs would not be strange 
 in a gospel which omits Mk. 7 : 1-24. But in reality 
 Lk. 12: 35-38 is a strict parallel, though in this version 
 of the parable the peculiarly Oriental features are subor- 
 dinated. 
 
 t "And the bride" is an addition of the Western text, 
 which is at least necessary to the sense. 
 
254 Appendix C 
 
 with them ; 4 but the prudent took oil in 
 their vessels with their lamps. 5 And while 
 the bridegroom delayed they all slumbered 
 and slept. 6 But at midnight there arose a 
 cry : Lo, the bridegroom ; come forth to 
 meet him. 7 Then all those virgins rose up 
 and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the fool- 
 ish said to the prudent, Give us of your oil, 
 for our lamps are going out. 9 But the pru- 
 dent answered and said, Nay, lest there be 
 not enough for us and you ; go rather to 
 the dealers and buy for yourselves. 10 And 
 while they were gone to buy, the bride- 
 groom came ; and they that were ready 
 went in with him to the wedding,* and the 
 door was shut. n Later came the other 
 virgins also and said, Sir, Sir, open unto us. 
 12 But he answered and said, Of a truth I 
 know you not. 
 
 To the Prince of this World the Son of Man 
 comes as a Thief: to Believers as a Master 
 to Waiting Sewants 
 
 Lk. 12: 39-46 = Mt. 24: 42-51 = Mk. 13: 33-37 
 
 Lk. 12 3U This ye know, that if the householder 
 had known at what hour the thief was com- 
 
 * The additional traits of I, k. 12: 37-38 seem to be de- 
 rived from verses 43-44 and Lk. 22 : 26-27 ; c ^ Mt 24 : 47. 
 
Appendix C 255 
 
 ing, he would not have allowed his house 
 to be broken into." 4rt You too should be «Mk. 3:27; 
 prepared, because the Son of Man will x ie:,s -5-2- 
 come in an hour when you are not expect- 
 ing it. 
 
 41 Peter said unto him, Sir, are you speaking 
 this parable to us, or even to all? 42 And the 
 Lord said : — 
 
 Who, then, is the faithful and prudent 
 steward, whom the master will set over his 
 household to distribute provisions as re- 
 quired? 4 "'That slave is to be congratu- 
 lated whom his master finds so doing when 
 he comes. 44 1 tell you of a truth he will 
 set him over all his property. ** But if that 
 slave says to himself, My master is defer- 
 ring his coming, and begins to beat the 
 servants and maids, and to eat and drink 
 and be drunken, 4(! the master of that slave 
 will come in a day that he expects him not, 
 and an hour of which he knows not, and 
 will cut him in pieces, and appoint him his 
 lot with the unfaithful. 6 b Mt- " ■ n 
 
 and || ||. 
 
 The foregoing seven discourses, which mani- 
 fest a greater or less degree of internal connec- 
 tion, must suffice to illustrate the possibilities of 
 synthetic reconstruction of the greater discourses 
 
256 Appendix C 
 
 of the Lord. We have not included the Jerusa- 
 lem discourses, though that on the Doom of 
 Jerusalem and the Certainty of the Speedy 
 Coming of the Son of Man, Mt. 24 = Mk. 13 = 
 Lk. 21, commonly called The Eschatological 
 Discourse, is at first sight well adapted to bear 
 out the contention that more than mere apoph- 
 thegms and sayings have survived to us. More- 
 over the section Mk. 13 : 28-32 = Mt. 24 : 32- 
 36 {duplicate Mt. 5 : 18 = Lk. i6:i7) = Lk. 
 21 (22?) : 29-33 5 Acts 1 : 7 would seem to be 
 the original source of the saying Mt. 5 : 18, now 
 embedded in the Sermon on the Mount. With 
 much more confidence we can assign the teach- 
 ing on How to Discriminate between True and 
 False Teachers, also now incorporated in the 
 Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 7 : 15-16 [20?] = 
 Lk. 6 : 44), to the discourse of Warning against 
 the Spirit of the Scribes, Mk. 12 : 38-40 = Mt. 
 23 : 1-10 = Lk. 20 : 45-47.* Mark here has set 
 an unfortunate example of combination by at- 
 taching verses 38 11 — 39 from the Denunciation of 
 the Scribes (see above, p. 222), and Matthew 
 goes still further by adding verses 4 (= Lk. 
 
 * See Appendix A (10), p. 161. 
 
Appendix C 257 
 
 11:46), 6- 7 s (= Lk. 11:43; Markan form, 
 Mk. 13 : 38 b -39 = Lk. 20:46), 11 (Markan 
 form, Mk. 10 : 43 = Mt. 20 : 26-27 = Lk. 22 : 26- 
 27), and 12 (= Lk. 14 : 11 = 18 : 14). In reality 
 the Denunciation uttered to the Pharisees and 
 Scribes, in Galilee, and the Warning of the 
 Twelve against the Spirit of the Scribes, in Je- 
 rusalem, should be distinguished, as the Lucan 
 narrative makes clear ; and it is with the latter 
 that we would connect Mt. 7 : 15-16 = Lk. 6 : 44. 
 If we may judge by the obvious interrelation 
 of the Farewell Discourse, Jn. 15-16, with the 
 second Mission of the Twelve. Lk. 22:35-38, 
 and with Mt. 10:16-33, this is also the true 
 place for the two sayings now incorporated in 
 the Sermon on the Mount, Lk. 6 : 40 = Mt. 
 10 : 24-25 = Jn. 15 : 20 (13 : 16), and parts of 
 Mt. 5 : 14-16 (cf. Jn. 8:12, Mk. 4 : 21, and Oxy- 
 rhyn. Logia, No. vii). Similarly there is much 
 to indicate that the teaching on Reconciliation 
 as better than Sacrifice, Mt. 5:23, and the Com- 
 mand to Forgive, Mt. 6 : 14-15, once belonged 
 in the context of Mt. 18:6-7, IO > T 5 -I 7> 2I_ 
 35, and the Call to Unsparing Renunciation, 
 Mt. 5 : 29-30 = Mk. 9 : 43-48 = Mt. 18 : S-9, 
 
258 Appendix C 
 
 and Parable of the Savourless Salt, Mt. 5:13 = 
 Lk. 14 : 34-35 = Mk. 9 : 50% belong in that of 
 Lk. 14:28-35.* 
 
 But it is not our purpose to discover a setting 
 for every fragment included in the Sermon on 
 the Mount ; nor shall we include discourses of 
 the Galilean period which show no signs of con- 
 nection with these fragments, though such as the 
 Eulogy of the Baptist and Dirge over the Cities 
 of Galilee, Mt. 11 : 1-24 = Lk. 7 : 18-35 '> IO : J 3~ 
 1 7, or the Parabolic Discourse on the lake-shore, 
 Mt. 13 : 1-52 = Mk. 4 : 1-34 = Lk. 8 : 1-1S, are 
 surely more than mere aggregations of scattered 
 utterances by evangelic compilers. The seven 
 discourses above given will suffice to illustrate 
 what may be done when the attempts at synthe- 
 sis of these early compilers are removed. Doubt- 
 less there will be comparatively little which will 
 fully vindicate itself to the judgment of our read- 
 ers as a whole ; but a little in this direction will 
 amply justify the task. May the bringing to- 
 gether of seemingly kindred utterances of the 
 Lord give new light on the meaning of the sev- 
 ered parts. 
 
 * See Appendix A (6), p. 145. 
 
INDEX TO SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 
 DISCUSSED 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Number 
 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Ps. 37:11 
 
 ti6, 127, 175 
 
 Mt. 5 : 29-30 
 
 
 80, 257 
 
 91:4 
 
 . 225 
 
 5:31-32 
 
 
 
 • 89 
 
 123:2 
 
 . 150 
 
 5:32 
 
 
 
 117, 177 
 
 Eccl. 1:12,16; 
 
 2:1-17 7° 
 
 5 : 33-37 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 Jere. 31:35-37 
 
 136 
 
 5:37 
 
 
 
 • 179 
 
 Amos 3: 10 
 
 219 
 
 5 : 38-42 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 Mt. 3 : 15 
 
 • 135 
 
 5:39 
 
 
 
 • 179 
 
 4:4 
 
 • 42 
 
 5 : 43-48 
 
 
 
 92 
 
 4 : 24-25 
 
 65-68, 83, 
 
 6:1-6 
 
 
 
 • 95-97 
 
 
 121, 124 
 
 6:1-18 
 
 
 
 39. 146 
 
 5:1-12 
 
 85. 125 
 
 6:7-15 
 
 72-73. 
 
 146, 181- 
 
 5 : 4-5 
 
 • 175 
 
 
 
 186 
 
 5:5 
 
 . 127 
 
 6: 14-15 
 
 
 148. 257 
 
 5:13 
 
 . 258 
 
 6:16-18 
 
 
 . 98 
 
 5:13-16 
 
 . 13° 
 
 6:18 
 
 
 180 
 
 5 : 17. 19-2 
 
 87,133, 
 
 6 : 19-20 
 
 
 • 154 
 
 
 138 
 
 6 : 19-34 
 
 69-72 
 
 148-156, 
 
 5 : 14-16 
 
 • 257 
 
 
 
 186-191 
 
 5:18-19 
 
 6, 133-138, 
 
 6 : 22-23 
 
 149 
 
 155. 231 
 
 
 256 
 
 6:24 
 
 
 153. 196 
 
 5 : 21-22 
 
 88 
 
 7:i-5 
 
 
 
 99 
 
 5 : 21-26 
 
 . 138 
 
 7 : 1-27 
 
 
 
 . 156 
 
 5 : 22-23 
 
 • 177 
 
 7:3-5 
 
 
 
 . 158 
 
 5:23 
 
 • 257 
 
 7:6 
 
 
 
 159. 203 
 
 5 : 23-26 
 
 80, 138 
 
 7:7-11 
 
 
 
 160, 185 
 
 5 : 27-28 
 
 . 89 
 
 7 : 12 
 
 
 
 91, 160 
 
 5 : 27-32 
 
 140 
 2 
 
 7:i3"!4 
 59 
 
 
 
 240 
 
260 
 
 Index 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Number 
 
 
 Number 
 
 7 : 13-20 
 
 . 161 
 
 Mt. 19 : 16-22 
 
 II 
 
 7 : 15-16 
 
 • 257 
 
 20 : 1-16 
 
 15 
 
 7:17 . 
 
 . . 165 
 
 21 : 18-22 
 
 . 249 
 
 7:18 . 
 
 100 
 
 23:12 . 
 
 201 
 
 7 : 19-20 
 
 . 166 
 
 23 : 15-22, 24 
 
 227-229 
 
 7 : 21-27 
 
 100, 166, 180 
 
 23 : 16-22 
 
 91, 227 
 
 7 : 28-29 
 
 102, 167 
 
 23 : 27 . 
 
 222 
 
 8 : 1-13 
 
 167 
 
 23 : 34-39 
 
 • 225 
 
 8:2-4 
 
 • 134 
 
 24 : 26-27 
 
 • 252 
 
 8:5-10, 13 
 
 102, 170 
 
 24 : 37-39 
 
 . 250 
 
 8: 11-12 
 
 242 
 
 24 : 37-25 : 46 
 
 ■ 171 
 
 9 : 32-34 
 
 • 151 
 
 24 : 40-41 
 
 • 25I 
 
 10 : 16-33 
 
 • 257 
 
 25 : I-I2 
 
 • 253 
 
 10 : 24-25 
 
 • 257 
 
 25 : 14-30 
 
 193-195 
 
 11:1-13, I4-] 
 
 5 • i47 
 
 25:31-46 
 
 243-245 
 
 12: 15-16 
 
 83, 121, 124 
 
 Mk. 1:7-8 . 
 
 19 
 
 12 : 22-45 
 
 • 151 
 
 1:15 . 
 
 212 
 
 12 : 22-50 
 
 . 203 
 
 1 : 21-28 
 
 I72 
 
 12 : 23-24 
 
 2IO 
 
 1 : 22 . 
 
 I02 
 
 12 : 25-32 
 
 212-215 
 
 1:24 . 
 
 212 
 
 12:33.35 
 
 IOO, 215 
 
 2:1-3:6 
 
 121 
 
 12 : 34, 36-37 
 
 • 215 
 
 3 : 7-14 £ 
 
 5-68,83-84, 
 
 12:34 . 
 
 • 165 
 
 
 121, I23 
 
 12 : 38-42 
 
 232-235 
 
 3:7-6: 12 
 
 122 
 
 12 : 43-45 
 
 • 235 
 
 3: 11-12 
 
 212 
 
 12 : 46-50 
 
 . 236 
 
 3 : 13-35 
 
 122 
 
 14 : 25-35 
 
 • 145 
 
 3 : 19-35 
 
 122 
 
 15 : 12-13 
 
 230 
 
 3: 20-21, 31- 
 
 32 . 236 
 
 I5:i4 • 
 
 ■ 230 
 
 3:22-30 1 
 
 22, I5I, 212- 
 
 16: 1-12 
 
 • 151 
 
 
 213 
 
 17 : 1-4 . 
 
 • 143 
 
 4 : 1-34 
 
 122 
 
 18:1-8 . 
 
 I46 
 
 4 : 10-25 
 
 • 132 
 
 18: 6-7, 10, 1 
 
 5-17. 
 
 4 : 11-12 
 
 132 
 
 21-35 • 
 
 • 257 
 
 4 : 21-22 
 
 I30, 132 
 
 18 : 6, 8-9 
 
 I40 
 
 4:35-5:43 • 
 
 122 
 
 18 : 21-35 
 
 I48 
 
 6:1-6. 
 
 122 
 
 19 : 9 • 
 
 • "7 
 
 6:3 • • 
 
 IOI 
 
Index 
 
 261 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Number 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Mk. 6: 30-7 : 31 ; 8 
 
 34- 
 
 Lk. 6 : 40 . 
 
 • 257 
 
 35 : 9 : 2- 
 
 [o . 217 
 
 6 : 41-42 
 
 • • 158 
 
 7 : 1-23 
 
 151. 217 
 
 6 : 43-45 
 
 ioo, 161-165 
 
 7:6-13 
 
 219 
 
 6:44 . 
 
 • 257 
 
 7 : 14-23 
 
 220 
 
 6 : 46-49 
 
 100, 166, 180 
 
 7 : 32-37 ; 8 : 1- 
 
 22, 
 
 7:1 . 
 
 102, 167 
 
 27-38; 9 
 
 1- 
 
 7 : 1-10 
 
 102, 167, I70 
 
 11:13 . 
 
 217 
 
 7 : 36-50 
 
 • 253 
 
 8 : 1-10 
 
 • 205 
 
 8:16 . 
 
 130, 132 
 
 8 : 11-21 
 
 • 151 
 
 11 : 1-4 . 
 
 73 
 
 8 : 13-21 
 
 237-239 
 
 11: 1-13 
 
 181-186 
 
 8 : 22-26 206-208, 217 
 
 11 : 14-12: 1 
 
 203 
 
 9 : 33-5o . 
 
 • 143 
 
 11 : 17-23; 12 
 
 : 10 212-215 
 
 9 : 42-49 
 
 140, 142 
 
 1 1 : 24-26 
 
 • 235 
 
 10: IO-II 
 
 140 
 
 1 1 : 27-28 
 
 • 236 
 
 10:17-31 
 
 11 
 
 11 : 29-31 
 
 • 232 
 
 11 : 12-14, 20-25 
 
 148, 249 
 
 11:29-32,34- 
 
 -36 150-153 
 
 12:38-40 
 
 222, 256 
 
 n:33-36 
 
 130, 132, 148 
 
 13 : 28-32 
 
 • 256 
 
 n:37-38 
 
 216 
 
 14:3-9 • 
 
 • 253 
 
 11:39-41 
 
 
 218 
 
 Lk. 4 : 16-30 
 
 20 
 
 11:42 44 
 
 
 222 
 
 5:12-16 
 
 167 
 
 11 : 45-47 
 
 
 223 
 
 6: 12-19 
 
 • 65 
 
 11:48-51 
 
 
 224 
 
 6 : 17-19 
 
 121, 124 
 
 11 : 53-12: 1 
 
 
 231 
 
 6 : 20-23 
 
 85, 125 
 
 12 : 1, 10 
 
 
 151 
 
 6: 21, 22, 23, 25, 
 
 
 12 : 13-34 
 
 69-72, 155. 
 
 26 
 
 175-176 
 
 
 186-190 
 
 6:24-26 . 39,86,125 
 
 12 : 35-38 
 
 • 253 
 
 6 : 27 . 
 
 • 38 
 
 12:39-46 
 
 254-255 
 
 6 : 27-28 
 
 92 
 
 12 : 47-48 
 
 193, 196 
 
 6 : 27-38 . 
 
 • 78 
 
 12 : 54-56 
 
 246 
 
 6:29-31 
 
 91 
 
 12:54-59 
 
 80 
 
 6 : 32-36 
 
 92 
 
 12:57-59 • 
 
 138. 247 
 
 6:35 • 
 
 • 179 J 
 
 13:1-5,6-9 
 
 247-248 
 
 6:37,38.41-42 
 
 99. 
 
 13 : 22-23 
 
 ■ 239 
 
 6 : 37-49 
 
 • 156 
 
 13 : 22-30 
 
 • 171 
 
 6 : 39-40 
 
 • 158 
 
 13 : 24 ■ 
 
 
 24O 
 
262 
 
 Index 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Number 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Lk. 13 : 24-27 
 
 161-166 
 
 Lk. 
 
 17 : 28-30 . 
 
 251 
 
 13 : 25 • 
 
 . 253 
 
 
 17:34-35 • 
 
 251 
 
 13 : 26-27 
 
 240-242 
 
 
 17 : 37 
 
 251 
 
 13 : 28-30 
 
 171, 241 
 
 
 18 : 1-8 . 1 
 
 81-186 
 
 13:31-33 
 
 • 245 
 
 
 18 : 9-14 . 1 
 
 99-201 
 
 13 : 34-35 
 
 224-225 
 
 
 19:11-28 . 1 
 
 92-195 
 
 14 : 28-35 
 
 . 258 
 
 
 19 : 26 
 
 195 
 
 14 : 34-35 
 
 . 130 
 
 
 22:35-38 • 
 
 257 
 
 16 : 1-13 
 
 • 155 
 
 Jn. 
 
 4:46-54 . 1 
 
 02, 170 
 
 16: 1-9,11-13 
 
 148-153. 
 
 
 6:14-15 . 
 
 210 
 
 
 186-191, 
 
 
 6: 22-65, 66-71 
 
 210 
 
 
 195 
 
 
 6 : 30 ff. . 1 
 
 51, 210 
 
 16: 10 . 
 
 192 
 
 
 9 : 1-12 . 2 
 
 06-207 
 
 16 : 13 . 
 
 • 153 
 
 
 9: 1-10: 21 2 
 
 09, 211 
 
 16 : 14-15 
 
 • 197 
 
 
 9 : 40 ff . . 1 
 
 51. 159 
 
 16 : 14-31 
 
 • 155 
 
 
 13 : 16 ; 15 : 20 
 
 159 
 
 16: 16-18 
 
 . 199 
 
 
 15-16. 
 
 257 
 
 16:17 . 
 
 • 133 
 
 Rom. 
 
 7-7 ■ 
 
 108 
 
 16:18 . 
 
 89, 140 
 
 1 Coi 
 
 . 1 : 24 ; 2 : 6-16 
 
 225 
 
 16 : 19-25 
 
 I48, 200 
 
 
 9:9 • 
 
 46 
 
 16 : 26-31 
 
 155, 200 
 
 
 13:3 • 
 
 14 
 
 17 : 7-10 
 
 15 
 
 Gal. 
 
 6 : 1-4 
 
 156 
 
 17 : 20-21 
 
 246 
 
 Jas. 
 
 1:25 
 
 7 
 
 17 : 22-24, 25 
 
 • 252 
 
 2 Jn. 
 
 IO-II 
 
 94 
 
 17 : 26-27 
 
 . 250 
 
 
 
 
THE HISTORY OF NEW TESTA- 
 MENT TIMES IN PALESTINE 
 
 By SHAILER MATHEWS 
 Cloth, 75 cents net ; postage, 1 1 cents 
 
 " Clearness of style, accuracy of statement, a scholarly 
 perception, and more than romantic interest have com- 
 bined in the fashioning of a very readable and informing 
 volume." — The Baptist Union. 
 
 " // is surprising how comprehensive it is within its limits." 
 — F. C. Porter, in Amer. Jour, of Theology. 
 
 "A most readable and interesting book. The history of the 
 Jewish people in Palestine from 175 B.C. to 70 a.d is told in 
 a clear and picturesque way, and the reader, whether the 
 story be old or new to him, is bound to follow it from begin- 
 ning to end. The important points stand out with due 
 prominence and clearness, and the result is a total impression 
 that is at once vivid and accurate." — Biblical World. 
 
 "Admirably clear." — Chicago Seminary Record. 
 
 " Will undoubtedly prove a valuable help to Sunday-school 
 teachers. Its statements are incisive and comprehensive. 
 The treatment is scholarly, and yet its pages arc not weighed 
 down with overmuch scholastic detail. The book has a good 
 map, a full index, helpful genealogies, and abundant footnotes 
 which direct the reader to the best literature on the subjects 
 discussed." — The Unity, Chicago. 
 
 " A small but valuable book." — Congregationalist. 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 
 TESTAMENT 
 
 By BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, Professor of New Testament 
 
 Exegesis in Yale Divinity School. 
 
 Cloth, J2mo, 75 cents net; postage, n cents 
 
 " Yields to no one of its predecessors in resources of scholarship or 
 skill of presentation. Professor Bacon's thorough conversance with the 
 processes and results of criticism, and his own great and even brilliant 
 qualities as a critic, unite to make his contribution to the series a very 
 notable one. Indeed, it is doubtful whether so much of real value as 
 to New Testament introduction was ever before brought within the 
 limits of a volume of this size." — The Dial. 
 
 " It is a compact statement, fairly free from technicalities, of the 
 present state of critical opinion concerning the New Testament as held 
 by the more advanced, but not extreme, class of scholars." 
 
 — The Baptist Standard, Chicago. 
 
 " He has endeavored to set forth for the lay reader, in an easy and 
 readable manner, facts familiar to scholars in the great treatises, and 
 results toward which critical science is tending — a difficult task, in the 
 narrowly prescribed space allowed by the limitations of the editor's 
 plan, but one well worth the doing, and, it may be added, well done 
 also. The volume is adapted for practical as well as more special use." 
 
 — Christian Advocate. 
 
 " He has written as lucidly as the general reader requires, and in 
 the fulness of scholarly freedom, with remarkable skill in the conden- 
 sation of voluminous material. He has aimed not merely at stating the 
 now accepted results, but at indicating the probable results toward 
 which sober criticism seems to him to be now tending." 
 
 — The Outlook. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 By EZRA P. GOULD, Author of "A Critical and Exegetical 
 Commentary of the Gospel of Mark " 
 
 Cloth, J2mo, 75 cents net ; postage, n cents 
 
 " Professor Gould has aimed to apply rigidly the methods of the 
 higher criticism to the examination of the theology of the New Testa- 
 ment. In point of conciseness and clearness of style, nothing but 
 praise can be given to his work. To pack so much matter into 
 so small a volume is a feat which shows no little mastery of thought as 
 well as of good English. It is a distinctly valuable contribution to its 
 subject." — Evening Post, Chicago. 
 
 "Fresh and stimulating" — Methodist Review. 
 
 " Of unusual interest. Apart from the work of Professor Stevens 
 it is practically the only book in English covering the entire field of 
 New Testament theology. Professor Gould writes in the utmost sym- 
 pathy with modern thought, and is especially interested in the relations 
 of the different phases of New Testament thinking. . . . Not the least 
 important feature of the book is the untechnical style in which it is 
 written." — Evening Transcript, Boston. 
 
 "Compact, but very clear.' 1 '' — Reformed Church Review. 
 
 "Throughout the emphasis is laid on the spiritual and ethical 
 interpretation of Christ's teachings as opposed to the literal and 
 materialistic conception of them. It should be especially useful to 
 Sunday-school teachers." — Pioneer Press, St. Paul. 
 
 " Brief but significant" — The Outlook. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 66 FIFTH AVENUE. NEW YORK 
 
BS2418.4.B12 
 
 The Sermon on the mount : its literary 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1012 00081 5144