The Sermon on the Mount[1] holds a special place in the Christian canon. So many scholars, thinkers, and writers have commented on its verses that, according to Hans Dieter Betz, a “complete account of the history of the exegesis of these texts does not exist at the present time and may never exist.”[2] There have been attempts at creating bibliographies of texts on the SM, but none of them cover fully the material produced on this section of the Gospel of Matthew.[3] This fact illustrates the prominence that the SM has held within Christian circles throughout the centuries.

With this vast array of studies on the SM it comes as a surprise that beyond the structure of the SM there is very little consensus of how to exactly interpret the sermon,[4] or if the text actually goes back to a real historical sermon that Jesus gave. It is my thesis that the text of the SM as presented in the Gospel of Matthew is largely authored by the evangelist himself, weaving different sources and traditions together to present a narrated whole. There is a sermon tradition in early Christian sources that goes back to Jesus, and each of these sources has their own version of what the substance of that sermon was.[5]

There are many evidences for this position, including: the fact that Luke presents a more basic and earlier version in his Sermon on the Plain;[6] different parts of Matthew’s SM are strewn throughout the Gospel of Luke, evidence for Matthew taking passages from Q and placing them together in a more edited narrative; specific verses showing dependence on a Greek original rather than on Aramaic,[7] the language of Jesus; and, as many commentators have pointed out, Matthew depicts Jesus as a new Moses figure, where

Matthew has shaped [the] opening stories of Jesus to show that Jesus’ life is a fulfillment of the stories of Moses…The parallels are too obvious to ignore: Herod is like the Egyptian pharaoh, Jesus’ baptism is like the crossing of the Red Sea, the forty days of testing are like the forty years the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness, and the Sermon on the Mount is like the Law of Moses delivered on Mount Sinai.[8]

Each of these different points will be explained more fully and in detail below, and then conclusions will be given as to how I think the SM and the SP should be viewed and used together in a historical-critical context. This is important because of the fact shown above: the SM has been discussed so much over the centuries that a correct understanding of the growth of the sermon-tradition is essential for an exegetical approach to the text. If one is to interpret the text, it is in my opinion that an informed understanding of the history and growth of the SM should be taken into account.

First, the version of the S given by Jesus found in the SP is more primitive and earlier than that found in the SM, but, “in terms of tradition history, the Gospel of Thomas has an earlier feel than Matthew and Luke. Its author knows only of Q and the isolated beatitude about the persecuted.”[9] The Gospel of Thomas is an important link in the discussion of the relationship of the S tradition as found in Matthew and Luke. It is not only a different version of the S, but an earlier version. It shares the Q tradition with the other two gospels and is further evidence for the existence of Q material being passed around and used.

As far as Matthew’s presentation of the S, he “attempts to form a complete collection: he collates Q, the exegetical additions [composed between Q and Matthew], and the isolated beatitude about the persecuted, and composes a further one about the ‘merciful.’”[10] On the other hand, “Luke uses Q but he, or an intermediary tradent, expands them with the woes. The very limited traces of these in patristic literature suggest a late date for their origin.”[11]

All of this is evidence that Matthew expanded upon the materials and sources that he had in front of him. The often confusing verses in the SM, such as Matt. 7:6, illustrate that “Matthew was a conservative author; he took [the verse] over from his tradition because it stood in his copy of Q.”[12] This verse is so outside the context of Matthew that it is possible that he did not even understand its original meaning.[13] He included it in his narrative because it stood in his source.

Matthew’s version of the S is much more refined and edited. His represents the culmination and gathering of all the materials found in Q, the isolated beatitude about the persecuted, and he even composes his own beatitude about the merciful. Historically, Matthew’s version comes after the Lukan SP and especially the tradition found in the Gospel of Thomas.

Second, the traditions found in the SM are strewn all over the Gospel of Luke. For instance, the SP includes only the beatitudes on the poor (Luke 6:20b=Matt. 5:3), those who hunger (Luke 6:21a=Matt. 5:6),[14] and the blessing of the disciples when they are hated by the world (Luke 6:22-23=Matt. 5:11-12). This means that the SM has vv. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in addition to those found in the SP.[15] These are the only beatitudes that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew share.

There are many other similarities between the SM and the Gospel of Luke. Pieces of the SM can be found in chs 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 of the Gospel of Luke. It is obvious that the SM and the Gospel of Luke both share a common source and use this source in differing ways. A list of the similarities and differences of these can be given as follows:

  1. 5:13[16]=Luke 14:34-35
    • The salt of the earth. Matthew’s version adds the metaphor that his audience is the salt where this is not found in Luke. Betz makes an odd claim that “the statement is unique in the SM and has no analogy in the SP.”[17] Of course it is not in the SP as he says, but it is not “unique” to the SM, at least outside of the S tradition.
  2. 5:18=Luke 16:17
    • Not a stroke or letter will pass from the law. Matthew’s version can be interpreted as apocalyptic.[18] His requires that one day heaven and earth will pass away and the law with it, because it is not “until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”[19] Luke’s version simply states that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.” Luke’s does not require or expect that heaven and earth will pass away, but instead comments on the almost impossibility of the law being ‘dropped’.
  3. 5:25-26=Luke 12:58-59
    • Coming to terms with your accuser on the way to court. There are no significant differences here. Luz states that, “Verses 25f. come from Q. Matthew has preserved the wording more faithfully than Luke, who adapts the saying to a Hellenistic financial lawsuit.”[20]
  4. 5:32[21]=Luke 16:18
    • Rule of divorcing a wife and remarrying. Jesus explains in both the SM and the gospel of Luke that men are not to divorce their wives or they commit adultery, and if a man marries a divorced woman he also commits adultery. Matthew adds a stipulation that men may divorce due to unchastity. He also adds that if a man does divorce his wife, he “causes her to commit adultery,” and therefore it is unclear whether or not the man actually commits adultery. It is obvious here that Matthew is expounding and explaining the earlier tradition found in Luke by adding the stipulation that divorce is allowed when one in the party is unchaste.
  5. 5:39-42=Luke 6:29-30[22]
    • Turning your cheek, suing for your coat, and giving to everyone that asks. This section is almost the same between the SM and the SP.[23] Matthew only adds one expansion, v. 41. This text refers to the practice among the Persians and taken over by the Romans of soldiers having the ability to “commandeer” individuals for gratuitous service. As noted by Betz, “an example occurs in the passion narratives, where Roman soldiers compel Simon of Cyrene to bear Jesus’ cross.”[24]
  6. 5:44-48=Luke 6:27-28, 32-36[25]
    • On the love of enemies. There are many similarities and differences in comparing these two sections. At the core of the two is the command to love, and especially to love one’s enemies.[26] The SM breaks off at v. 45b and has its own unique material, where Matthew has Jesus explaining that the sun and rain both fall on the righteous and the wicked. In v. 44 Matthew has the words “pray for those who persecute you,” whereas Luke reads, “pray for those who abuse you.”[27] The SM has the title ‘children of God’ closer to the beginning, whereas the SP reserves mentioning this title until nearer the end. The sinners of SP/Luke 6:34b become ‘tax collectors’ in SM/Matt. 5:46b. The most interesting variant is the command at the end of both sections. The SM has the familiar command to be perfect, whereas the SP has the command to be merciful.
  7. 6:9-13[28]=Luke 11:2-4
    • The Lord’s Prayer. These sections are also very similar to one another. The SM adds that the Father is in heaven; the Father’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven; and the request to rescue the disciples from the evil one. An interesting variant between the two is that in the SP debts are equated to ‘sins’ in v. 4.
  8. 6:22-23=Luke 11:34-36
    • The eye is the lamp of the body. The Lukan version is longer here. The two are almost exactly the same until the end, where the SM simply ends with exclaiming, “If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” The Lukan parallel ends in light rather than darkness: “If then your whole body is full of light, with no part of it in darkness, it will be as full of light as when a lamp gives you light with its rays.” The focuses of the two are completely the opposite at the end. The SM focuses on darkness and the Gospel of Luke on light.
  9. 6:24[29]=Luke 16:13
    • You cannot serve two masters. These sections are almost completely identical. The SM begins with “No one,” whereas the Gospel of Luke begins with “No slave.” The SM generalizes the passage more with “No one,” but still meets up with Luke at “a slave will either hate the one…” It appears that the introduction in Luke represents the sense of the text more than the SM. As Betz states, “The omission of “slave”…in vs 24a (as compared with the Lukan Q-parallel) indicates that for the SM the statement serves as a theological principle, so that the terms no longer function legally but theologically.”[30]
  10. 6:25-33[31]=Luke 12:22-31
    • Worrying about having food and clothing. The SM and the Gospel of Luke are very close here, and have only a few variances. They separate for one line at Matt. 6:28a and Luke 12:26, where Matthew adds a seemingly random question that summarizes what the Lukan parallel is asking, “And why do you worry about clothing?” Luke has a verse that actually fits and compliments the context. His says, “If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest?” At the end Matthew also adds that the disciples are to strive “for the kingdom of God and his righteousness.” Luke does not have the Matthean ‘righteousness’, but only the ‘kingdom of God’.
  11. 7:1-5=Luke 6:37-38, 41-42
    • Do not judge or condemn but forgive others. In these sections Matt. 7:3-4 follow Luke 6:41-42 very well with minimal variances. On the other hand, the first two verses in each section vary widely. The SM only discusses judgment, omitting condemning and forgiving. The SP discusses the ‘measure’ motif where the SM only briefly mentions it.
  12. 7:12=Luke 6:31
    • The Golden Rule. The two traditions here are very similar, except the SM adds that this rule “is the law and the prophets,” following his pattern of a more Jewish version of the gospels. Luz states that, “In Q, the Golden Rule most likely belonged in the section on love of enemies; Matthew moved it to the end of the main part of the Sermon on the Mount. The apodosis, “for this is the law and the prophets,” comes from him…”[32]
  13. 7:13-14=Luke 13:23-24
    • The gates of life and destruction. These verses represent the same tradition but are very different from one another. In the SM it is given as simply a part of Jesus’ speech, moving from one topic to the next with no interruption. In the Lukan parallel Jesus is first asked, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” He then proceeds to answer and simply says, “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able.” The parallel in the SM describes two gates, a narrow one that leads to life and a wide gate with an easy road that leads to destruction.
  14. 7:15-20=Luke 6:43-45; Luke 13:26
    • Good and bad trees. The SM seems to be a polemic against “false prophets,” possibly a group that the Matthean community was at odds with. The SP does not include anything about prophets or false prophets at all, but instead only discusses people in general. Luz states that, “Matthew combines two Q pieces from the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:43-45, 46) with another Q piece (Luke 13:26f). The Matthean redaction is intensive.”[33]
  15. 7:24-27=Luke 6:47-49
    • The wise man built his house on rock, and the foolish man on sand. These two sections are very close to the end of both the SM and the SP respectively. They represent Jesus’ warning to his disciples that they must not only hear his words but act on them also. There are little variances between the SM and the SP (i.e. SP does not say ‘sand’ for the foolish man, but “ground without a foundation” instead; SP does not include rain or wind but only a flood from a river that threatens the house) but they both represent a very similar tradition of Jesus ending his sermon.
  16. 7:28b-29=Luke 4:32
    • He taught with authority. Both sections are almost identical. The SM adds only that his authority was “not as their scribes.”

It becomes apparent in the above comparisons that Matthew’s SM is found in many different parts of Luke’s gospel. They both share a common source and are not reliant on each other. The question here is why does Matthew have all of these sections that are strewn throughout Luke in only one sermon? As discussed above, the Gospel of Luke, with the SP especially, represents an earlier form of the traditions that Matthew picks up in the SM. Matthew wishes to portray a great speech given by Jesus, even greater than that found in Q. He needs a narrated speech similar to Moses’ in Deuteronomy, for Jesus has come to fulfill the law and give the ‘more correct’ interpretation of it.

We are to conclude then that “internal analysis and comparison with Luke’s Gospel suggest that the Evangelist (in accord with his habit of synthesis) has inserted into this account of the Sermon portions of Jesus’ teaching given on other occasions.”[34]

Third, it becomes obvious in studying the SM that there are certain passages that are dependent on the Greek language for their origin, rather than on an Aramaic original coming from Jesus’ own words. These are similar to the tradition found in John 3 about Nicodemus’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ words about being ‘born again’. The tradition presupposes Greek and therefore cannot go beyond the Greek language tradition.[35]

A perfect example of this is Matt. 5:17, where, as Luz notes, “It is rash to trace this saying back to Jesus and to make it the anchor of the interpretation of Jesus’ understanding of the law.”[36] Luz also goes on to explain that the text cannot be a witness to an original, because it comes from the Aramaic “עונ גליונ, i.e. a disparaging pun on ευαγγελιον, and thus betrays the fact that it presupposes the Greek language tradition…not a Hebrew or Aramaic original text.”[37]

Besides the fact that there are verses that betray a Greek origin rather than an Aramaic, there are certain Matthean traits in the Gospel of Matthew that can be found throughout the text. These are different from the other gospels and are identified as the author’s “habits.”[38] This allows scholars to mark certain parts of the text as ‘Matthean,’ and allows us to call them redactional.[39] Ulrich Luz discusses these stylistic traits of the author of Matthew in detail in his commentary on the gospel. He points out specifically that the gospel includes the following:

  1. It is more differentiated, polished and “elevated” than the popular, Semitic Greek of Mark or Q.
  2. The Matthean style is sparser than that of Mark. The narratives are tightened. The Matthean abridgements try to bring out clearly what is essential. They have a didactic function.
  3. The Matthean style is repetitive…
  4. Matthew is strongly influenced by the Septuagint
  5. Matthew writes a Greek which is influenced by Jewish, occasionally rabbinic features. His language sometimes shows a clear relationship to the linguistic development in rabbinic Judaism of the time.[40]

Fourth, and last, as Ehrman and others have pointed out, the presentation of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew is obviously based off the traditional Moses figure. In interpreting the SM it is important to remember the context that it has been placed by the author and how it fits in the running narrative. Realizing that the sermon does not stand on its own but is dependent on the rest of Matthew’s writings, how does it fit with the rest of the gospel?

I find Ehrman’s explanation most convincing. Matthew is presenting Jesus as a new Moses, even to the point of having five ‘books’ within the structure of the Gospel. Matthew[41] was literarily talented in many ways, and it is obvious that he spent much time in organizing his thoughts before actually writing down his gospel. With this in mind it is striking that there are five sections, or ‘books’ or main divisions, to the gospel of Matthew that can be outlined as:

  1. The infancy narratives (chs. 1-2)
  2. Discipleship (chs. 3-7)
  3. Apostleship (chs. 8-10)
  4. The hidden revelation (chs. 11:1-13:52)
  5. The church (chs. 13:53-18:35)
  6. The Judgment (chs. 19-25)
  7. The passion narrative (chs. 26-27)
  8. The Resurrection (ch. 28)[42]

The middle five sections, 2-6, are commonly understood as these five ‘books’ or divisions. This adds to the theory that Matthew was intentionally making Jesus appear as a Moses figure, as the one who would fulfill the Law of Moses. The SM fits perfectly then as the interpretation of the Law by Jesus in Matthew’s mind, and therefore should be approached with the knowledge that the author was synthesizing sources, and was talented enough to weave these sources together in one long, beautiful narrative.

In conclusion, we have examined four reasons to view the SM as a synthesis of many sources by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew was writing for his Jewish-Christian community and had a direct purpose. Righteousness within the Law of Moses is very much at the heart of Matthew’s writing, and he did a wonderful job weaving the different sources that he had available to him together into one coherent narrative. Despite the fact that Matthew was such a great author, it is possible to discover the literary seams and differing sources that Matthew used during a close reading and careful analysis of the text, especially in comparison with the other Christian documents (i.e. the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Thomas, and Q) that share these early Christian traditions.

The SM in particular is a great representation of the ability of Matthew’s artistic talent. Its importance to the Christian church has long been noted, and not only is there already too much material written on the SM, the material will never stop growing. People will continue to write on the sermon for as long as the New Testament text continues to be used, and in writing on the SM the student of the text should always take into account the fact that it represents a construction of multiple sources. There are simply certain aspects of the SM that cannot be recovered completely in their original meaning or detail,[43] (and as Luz pointed out, some verses cannot even be interpreted within the Matthean context) and in a very real sense this shows that taken out of the SM these texts have no real sort of unity whatsoever. It is only when Matthew takes them from Q, adds a few of his own verses, and places them together do they find a kind of unity, and even then a limited one.

 

 

[1] Hereafter ‘SM’. The NRSV will be the translation used in this essay unless otherwise noted.

[2] Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 5.

[3] See Warren S. Kissinger, The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1975); Betz (The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 5, nt. 9) also notes as important summaries of the history of interpretation as Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989); and Johannes Bouterse, De boom en zijn vruchten: Bergrede en Bergrede-Christendom bij Reformatoren, Anabaptisten en Spiritualisten in de zestiende eeuw (Kampen: Kok, 1986); Hans Dieter Betz, op. cit., 5, nt. 9.

[4] Hereafter I will refer to the ‘sermon’ (i.e. the common tradition between the SM, the SP, Q, and the Gospel of Thomas that Jesus gave a single sermon and they all share similarities on), as simply ‘S’.

[5] Much like that of ‘the Chosen One/Anointed One/Righteous One/Son of Man

[6] Hereafter ‘SP’. For full discussions of the SP see Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 571-640; and Francois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 215-256.

[7] Matt. 5:17 is a perfect example of this where the verse itself “betrays the fact that it presupposes the Greek language tradition” (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 257, nt. 7), rather than an original Aramaic, of which Jesus would have spoken. This is discussed further below.

[8] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 118-119.

[9] Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 221.

[10] Bovon, op. cit., 221.

[11] Bovon, op. cit., 221.

[12] Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 419.

[13] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 494.

[14] The connection here of these verses is in the ‘hunger’ motif, but Matthew’s represents redactional activity. Instead of Jesus’ blessing of those who hunger, in the SP literally after food, he is presented as giving a more metaphorical explanation of those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” (NRSV). At the beginnings of the Jesus movement Jesus was out speaking and addressing those who were literally poor. The gloss found in the SM can be explained that this is a later reinterpretation of the original intent of the beatitude. Matthew also made v. 3 a metaphor when he included ‘in spirit’, so that they were not literally the poor of the world; cf. Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 237; and Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 225-226; and especially Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 129.

[15] Luz lays out a very complicated picture of what of the beatitudes does go back to Jesus. He argues that the “three first beatitudes, transmitted in Q (Luke 6:20b, 21) might go back to Jesus in their Lukan form of text (perhaps without the Lukan νυν in v. 21),” Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 227. For a critical review of Luz’s reconstruction, see Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 109.

[16] Luz calls this Matthew’s “redactional introduction”; see Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 249.

[17] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 158.

[18] “This temporal limit is derived from apocalyptic expectation…”; Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 184.

[19] “Matthew 24:35 speaks explicitly of the fact that Jesus’ words will outlast heaven and earth. Does the evangelist mean that-in contrast to the words of Jesus-the law is to be valid only until the passing of heaven and earth?” (emphasis in original); Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 265.

[20] Luz, op. cit., 281.

[21] See Luz, op. cit., 302-310.

[22] Bovon also points out that Didache 1.4-5 is also a parallel, “despite differences of form and content: Did. 1.4a (slap on the face, miles, and shirt) is closer to Matthew, but Did. 1.4b-5 (your property) to Luke,” in Francois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 239.

[23] “Aside from vv. 38-39a, Q lies at the basis”, Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 323.

[24] Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 291.

[25] See Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 234-239.

[26] Luz says that, “The commandment of love of enemies is one of the most central of Christian texts. It is not only quoted frequently in early Christian parenesis and in most Christian areas, but is considered the Christian distinction and innovation, in which the Gentiles marvel,” Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 340. Bovon quotes Lapide who says, in like manner, “This imperative is probably the only one in all the three chapters of the Sermon on the Mount that lacks a clear parallel or analogy in rabbinic literature. It is, in the terminology of theologians, material specific to Jesus.”” Bovon also makes the important point that, “This uniqueness of the Christians should not, however, be understood ahistorically,” Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 234.

[27] For more on the differences between ‘persecute’ and ‘abuse’ here, see Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 235-236.

[28] See Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 369-389.

[29] Cf. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 456-459.

[30] Betz, op. cit., 456.

[31] Cf. Betz, op. cit., 460-465.

[32] Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 425.

[33] Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 440.

[34] Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy eds, The Oxford Annotated Bible containing the Old and New Testaments (NRSV; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 6.

[35] Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 206.

[36] Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 257.

[37] Luz, op. cit., 257, nt. 7.

[38] Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy eds, The Oxford Annotated Bible containing the Old and New Testaments (NRSV; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 6.

[39] Luz often points out areas of the Gospel of Matthew that are ‘redactional,’ and even goes as far as discussing redaction and sources in each new section. See for example Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 226, 237 (righteousness is a ‘key term’ for Matthew), 241, 247, 249.

[40] Emphasis in the original; Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhem C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 49-50.

[41] I use Matthew the same as Betz outlines his usage in Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 4-5.

[42] George Arthur Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 3:304.

[43] i.e. Matt. 7:6.

All posts by