In the Gospel according to Matthew we find a long discourse attributed to Jesus known as the Sermon on the Mount. In the Gospel according to Luke we find a shorter discourse which has many passages in common with the Sermon on the Mount. It is called the Sermon on the Plain in Luke since the setting is given as a "level place" whereas the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is preceded with the explanation that "Jesus went up into the mountain". Are these two different occasions and discourses, or are they different reports of the same occasion and discourse?

Both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain begin with a series of statements called the "Beatitudes", since they assert various properties which are called "blessed". Each ends with the parable of the two men, the one who built his house upon the rock, and the other who built his house upon the sand. The middle portion of each discourse contains some hortatory statements regarding love of enemies, judging not, and trees being known by their fruit, these statements being reported in the same order in each discourse. Now it is not impossible that Jesus gave two nearly identical discourses on two different occasions, one on the mountain and one on the plain; but it is also possible that when the memories of those reporting the occasion came to be written down that oral transmission had located them differently and preserved different statements. So we should ask, are there other features of the two Sermons and other features of the two Gospels which suggest only one discourse as the original?

If we place the two Sermons side by side, so that the identical passages can be seen clearly in relation to the differing passages, we can see that Matthew contains all of the Sermon on the Plain in nearly the same order, that the Sermon on the Mount contains many passages found elsewhere in Luke's Gospel, but that it also contains many passages not found in any other Gospel. (There are two verses in the Sermon on the Plain which are not in Matthew's Sermon, but these two are actually out of context where they occur.) Is it possible that Matthew actually composed his Sermon out of the sermon also reported by Luke, other source material which both he and Luke had, and source material which he alone had?

Comparison of the two Gospels in parallel and with the Gospel of Mark reveals the fact that all of the passages in the Sermon on the Mount which are not in the Sermon on the Plain but found elsewhere in Luke are within the portion of Luke known as "Luke's Great Interpolation", which is a long series of parables sayings, and events that Luke placed between two incidents reported identically by both Matthew and Mark. More specifically, comparison of all three Gospels in parallel reveals the facts that a) nearly all of Mark is included within Matthew or Luke and in nearly the same order; b) where either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark as to the order or details of an event, either Matthew reports the same order and description of the event as Mark, or Luke reports the same order and content as Mark; c) that the section known as "Luke's Great Interpolation" contains many passages which are found scattered throughout Matthew and others which are found in no other Gospel; and d) that Matthew's version of the discourses reported by Mark and Luke contains many passages which are found in no other Gospel. These relationships lead to the following hypothesis as to the origin of the Gospels first proposed by Ernest DeWitt Burton in 1898.

Luke's procedure was to use the first part of the Galilean document, Mark, and the Perean document as the basis for his gospel, deleting the stories from Mark where they were different from those in the Galilean document or the Perean document. He inserted the Perean document in toto into his gospel at the point where Jesus starts on his way to Jerusalem for the Passover, and concludes with the last part of the Galilean document, sometimes called the Jerusalem document because it covers the last week of Jesus' life, which was in Jerusalem. Thus Luke appears to be a compilation of the three older documents which he had collected, with little editorial alteration.

Matthew's procedure was to use Mark as the basis for his gospel, but deleting the stories from the Galilean document where they differed from those of Mark, and using the Perean document and the Matthean document to amplify the discourse in the Galilean document and the discourses reported by Mark, using parts of Mark, passages from the Perean document, and passages from the Matthean document. Matthew also inserted many editorial comments regarding fulfillment of Old Testament "prophecies" and prediction of coming events, and modified statements by Jesus in a theological and eschatalogical direction.

Matthew and Luke apparently each used different oral traditions for their stories of the birth and resurrection of Jesus, since they cannot be harmonized with each other differing as to location, sequence of appearances, and audiences to whom Jesus appeared. Neither Mark nor John contain a birth story, and the oldest manuscripts of Mark either do not contain a resurrection story or they contain a version different from the one reported in the King James translation and subsequently the English Revised and American Revised translations. Also it may be noted that the list of appearances reported by Paul is different from any of the Gospels and includes his own experience which is not reported by himself as a bodily appearance.

Based on the Burton hypothesis, I propose a Discourse on Standards of Goodness, as I see it as having been originally given on the occasion of the Sermon on the Plain remembered fragmentarily as Luke's Sermon on the Plain modified by Matthew to have taken place in the mountain because of a reference in the immediately preceding verses of Mark, and parts of it remembered also as the Matthean document, sometimes known as Matthew's Logia, which includes those portions of Matthew's gospel not found in any other Gospel.

As interesting as all this analysis may be, it is the content of the Sermons that is more important. The structure is important to consider because it is possible that the meaning is a function of the structure, and also because it is possible that not everything in the Sermons is from Jesus, and some of it may have nothing to do with what he was teaching. That is why we must consider the structure: to see how it "hangs together" and with other parts of Jesus' teachings.

In examining the content, however, we must start with the self-evident axiom that any teaching is useful only insofar as it can be practiced constantly; if it is difficult to understand or apply then it is not useful at least not for many people. Of course this axiom could be challenged on the basis that many useful and important things require study before they can be used; but it still must be evident that those things are going to be useful or there is no reason to pursue the study.

Thus even before examining the content, we need to know what problems are being spoken to, what the content will be useful in dealing with. What problems are being approached in the Sermon on the Mount? Henry Burton Sharman in his text, The Records of the Life of Jesus proposes the alternate title for the Sermon: the "Discourse on Standards of Righteousness", since the material seems to be on what is right and proper, or best and worthy behavior. In other words, the Discourse attempts to answer (even if only in part) the question: What is the Right Thing to Do?

The first portion of the Discourse speaks to the state of his listeners; certain properties are extolled as "blessed", or virtuous; and certain statements are made about the relationship of Jesus to the Law of Moses and of his listeners to righteousness in general. The "blessed" properties may be listed as: poverty, hunger, sorrow mercy, purity of heart, peace-making or reconciliation-seeking, and suffering under persecution. The first three have to do with physical states, and the last four with acts or consequences. Jesus also asserts that his hearers are the "light of the world" and the "salt of the earth"; that he is not come to set aside the Law which is still permanent and eternal; and that one's righteousness must exceed that of those around them or it is insufficient to reach the "kingdom of God".

The second portion of the Discourse speaks to five kinds of behavior, including anger or contempt, lust taking of vows, responses to that which is perceived as evil, and treatment of those who are regarded as enemies. This section also considers several kinds of behavior which are generally considered to be "religious" those of alms-giving, prayer, and fasting. The Sermon on the Mount as presented by Matthew then contains some general exhortations regarding attitude towards life which are important but not part of a consideration of righteousness: laying up treasure in heaven, and unmindfulness of physical need.

The third portion contains a number of contrasts of behavior: not judging, clearing one's own eyes of blind spots, giving gifts asked or unasked the Golden Rule, the Narrow Way, good and bad fruits and the parable of the house on the rock and the house on the sand. Each of these could be given much explication, and it is probable that Jesus gave such explication when he gave the Discourse, instead of obscure hints. But we do not have that explication and we must be content with the words we have, and try not to read our own preconceptions into them.

The student of the Sermon on the Mount will have observed that some of the most loved passages from the Sermon I have omitted in the previous rendering. These include Jesus' public prayer known as the "Lord's Prayer", the treasure in heaven not being anxious about our lives. The latter passages I have omitted since they come from Luke's Great Interpolation and also because they do not seem to bear directly on the question of "What is the Right Thing to Do?" but rather on "What is the Right Way to Feel?" which is valid and interesting but I will consider it elsewhere, elsewhen, and under another title.

I have also omitted the so-called "Lord's Prayer" perhaps the single most widely known saying attributed to Jesus. There are several reasons for this omission from the Discourse, as follows:

Therefore, I prefer to call it "Jesus' public prayer", rather than the "Lord's prayer". I have also attempted to re-cast the thoughts contained in it in a way which expresses the manner after which 'I feel that we should pray.