(6) There are some apparent discrepancies in the names in the various lists. Bartholomew occurs in every list, but is generally understood to be another name for Nathanael. Thaddeus is also called Judas the brother of James. Matthew and Mark give Thaddeus, and Luke in Gospel and Acts gives Judas the brother of James. It was a very common circumstance for one to have two names. Lebbeus, given in some MSS. in Matthew and Mark, is only a marginal explanation of Thaddeus. Both are terms of endearment. Matthew and Mark again call Simon the Cananæan, while Luke in the Gospel and Acts speaks of him as Simon the Zealot. But "Zealot" is simply a translation into Greek of the Aramaic "Cananæan." Jesus gave the other Simon the name "Cephas," which was translated into the Greek "Peter," meaning rock. He is called by all three names in the New Testament. Matthew likewise had another name, Levi, and Thomas was also called Didymus, which was a Greek translation of Thomas, meaning "twin."
9. The Sermon on the Mount
Do Matthew and Luke record the same discourse? Let us consider the several theories on this subject. My own view will be stated last.
1. Some hold that the two discourses are entirely distinct in time, place, circumstances and audience. The arguments for this theory usually presented are these.
(a) The time of delivery of the two sermons appears to be different. Matthew gives the sermon before his call ([Matt. 9:9]), while Luke precedes his sermon by the call of the twelve. Hence Matthew's discourse comes quite a while before Luke's in the early Galilean ministry. But it may be well replied that, inasmuch as Matthew's arrangement in ch. 8-13 is not chronological, but topical, it is entirely possible, even likely, that the same arrangement should prevail in ch. 5-7. It is perfectly natural that Matthew, writing for Jewish readers and about the Messianic reign, should give at the beginning of his account of that reign the formal principles that rule in this new state of affairs, as proclaimed by Jesus on a later occasion. In the early part of the ministry of Jesus, besides, the hearers would hardly be prepared for so advanced and radical ideas. Besides, Matthew makes no note of time whatever for this discourse.
(b) The place appears to be different. One is on a mountain ([Matt. 5:1]), while the other is on a plain ([Luke 6:17]). Hence the one is called by Clark the Sermon on the Mount, and the other the Sermon on the Plain. Miller (Int. Stand. Bible Encyclopædia) is uncertain whether Matthew and Luke report the same discourse and so discusses also Luke's "Sermon on the Plain." But his argument is not convincing. If it is necessary that "plain" here shall mean a place away from a mountain, down in a valley, this would seem to refer to a different place. McClellan seeks to show that Luke uses "and" in [6:17-20] by way of anticipation. He presents for effective grouping events that happened after Jesus came down out of the mountain before he gives the sermon delivered to the whole body of disciples up in the mountain. This is possible, but another interpretation is much more likely. The plain here is really simply "a level place" (Rev. Ver.). So then the two accounts of Matthew and Luke will harmonize quite well. Jesus first went up into the mountain to pray ([Luke 6:12]) and selected and instructed the Twelve. Afterwards he came down to a level place on the mountain side whither the crowds had gathered, and stood there and wrought miracles ([Luke 6:17]). He then went up a little higher into the mountain where he could sit down and see and teach the multitudes ([Matt. 5:1]). Matthew gives the multitudes as the reason for his going up into the mountain. By this arrangement any discrepancy between "sat" in Matthew and "stood" in Luke disappears. Waddy has given an admirable arrangement of the material at this point in Note C, p. xix. Many writers affirm that the tradition mentioned by Jerome, making the Horns of Hattin the place where the Sermon on the Mount was delivered, suits this explanation exactly. There is a level place on it where the crowds could have assembled. It is not necessary to insist that this mountain is the Mount of Beatitudes, nor need we contend, as Robinson does, that the mountain must be very close to Capernaum.
(c) The audience is different. Matthew ([4:25]) states that his audience was composed of "great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan," while Luke ([6:17]) says that there was "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." Matthew says ([5:1]) also that "his disciples came unto him." Hence both assemblages were composed of great multitudes from many regions besides many of his disciples, but in neither case is Jesus said to address himself to any save his disciples, his followers ([Matt. 5:1] and [Luke 6:20]). So in both accounts the Saviour seems to withdraw a little from the great outside crowd of curiosity seekers. But the multitudes also must have heard something of what he said, for they were astonished at his teaching ([Matt. 7:28]). Andrews well shows that the audience in Matthew were not mostly Jews (according to Kraft), and the audience in Luke mostly heathen. Matthew omits Tyre and Sidon, but he had already mentioned Syria (4:24), which includes Tyre and Sidon. Neither list may be complete. Hence nothing can be made out of Luke's omission of Galilee, Decapolis, and beyond Jordan. Great multitudes from the same general regions are alluded to as being present.
(d) The contents are radically different. It is objected by Alford, Greswell, etc., that Luke omits large portions of what Matthew has so that Luke has only thirty verses, while Matthew has one hundred and seven. But this leaves out of consideration the several large portions of the same matter which Luke has placed elsewhere, or which Jesus repeated on other occasions (cf. [Matt. 6:9-13] and [Luke 11:2-4]; [Matt. 6:25-34] and [Luke 12:22-31]). Jesus often repeated his sayings on other occasions as all teachers do and ought to do. Neither evangelist gives a complete report of this wonderful discourse. So Matthew omits some things which Luke records (cf. [Matt. 5:12] with [Luke 6:23-6]; [Matt. 7:12] with [Luke 6:31-40]). Nor need we be surprised that Luke, writing generally for all Christians, omits large portions towards the beginning of the sermon that were designed especially for Jews (see [Matt. 5:17-27]; [6:1-18]). These Matthew would be sure to record. Luke adds four woes to the beatitudes. It is unnecessary to remark upon minor variations of language, since the gospels manifestly aim to give the sense of what the Saviour said and not the verbatim words. The variations in the Synoptic reports of the sayings of Jesus add much to the interest of the narratives. Moreover, to offset these variations, which admit of explanation, it ought to be remembered that the two discourses begin alike and end alike, that they have a general similarity in the order of the different parts, and that they show a general likeness and often absolute identity of expression.
So these differences all melt away on careful comparison, and it is not proved that there are two distinct sermons.