Why Only Matthew Records the Sermon on the Mount

Introduction: A Puzzling Omission

There are four gospels in the Bible, each purporting to tell the true story of Jesus' time on earth. In these four books, the famous Sermon on the Mount is recorded in full only once — in Matthew — though a much abridged version appears in Luke, reportedly delivered after Christ had descended from that same mountain. Understandably, no single short book could possibly encompass all the events of any man's life, let alone the life of a wise prophet and Messiah. It seems odd that this sermon is not recorded elsewhere — not because each of the gospels should be expected to cover the same episodes, as if there were no others, but rather because generally speaking they do stick to the same canon of stories.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic gospels because they are interwoven with one another and tend to portray the same events. John is the odd gospel out, appearing interested in different parables and stories. The inclusion of four gospels, all of which tell slightly different and at times inconsistent stories, has led to a great deal of speculation among scholars as to which are most accurate and where between their lines the "real" story lies. In order to thoroughly examine why there is only one complete telling of the Sermon on the Mount across four gospels, it is necessary to understand the many competing theories about why there are four gospels and what the connections between them may be.

The Orthodox Explanation and Divine Will

The most obvious and orthodox answer to this question can be summed up in one word: God. To be more precise — what God wants, God gets, and one does not question God. This theory suggests that each author was divinely instructed as to precisely what words should be used. Similarities between gospels are therefore evidence that God was dictating the literal words of Jesus, while differences may be attributed to metaphor, mystery, or the possibility of dual truths. For example, some claim that the different lineages recorded in Matthew and Luke come from tracing Jesus' lineage alternately through his adoptive father and through his mother. Old orthodoxy would link the number of gospels to the divine will of God: "Why were there only four? St. Irenaeus explained: 'There are four principal winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels.'"

According to this explanation, one may be sure that the Sermon on the Mount appears in the Bible only once because God, in his inscrutable knowledge, willed this to be the case.

Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem

Another set of common beliefs regarding the origin of the gospels — which may or may not coincide with belief in their divine inspiration — holds that one of the gospels came into existence first, and the others were based on it. The general consensus currently is that Mark came first, followed by Matthew and Luke, at least one of which was based on the other. As scholars reason, "Matthew and Luke both use Mark as a source, and also had other sources of their own."

In this scenario, it becomes clear why the Sermon on the Mount appears in Matthew (and in a much abridged version, as the Sermon on the Plain, in Luke) but not in Mark — these appearances post-date Mark. Perhaps additional information, whether through divine inspiration, word of mouth, outside sources, or personal ingenuity, was available to Matthew and/or Luke. John, working from radically different sources and knowledge pools, apparently had either not heard of the Sermon on the Mount or did not consider it particularly outstanding among the many teachings of Christ. Those who argue in defense of this theory point to the way that "minor agreements" are frequently made between Luke and Matthew in instances where both are retelling a story from Mark, yet both share a small word choice that they do not share with Mark. Other supporting arguments include the non-existence of a verifiable source document known as Q.

The Q Source Hypothesis

One theory about this outside source is that it was a collection of the "sayings" of Christ. Most of the gospels are narrative, yet many ancient sources — including biblical passages — suggest that there were books filled with the sayings of Christ. Many scholars postulate the existence of a proto-gospel filled with the wisdom teachings of Christ, known euphemistically as Q. The Q theory generally speculates that Mark and Q predate Matthew and Luke, and that these later two were written without knowledge of each other's efforts.

Q is supposedly a lost book that prefigures the later synoptics by giving more dialogue than Mark, including the Sermon on the Mount. It is particularly the differences between Matthew and Luke in their accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, as well as the differences in their accounts of the birth of Jesus, that point toward Q. "An assessment of the totality of the evidence indicates a balance in favor of the Q hypothesis."

If the Q hypothesis is correct, then the reason the Sermon on the Mount appears in Matthew but not completely anywhere else is that it represents a collection of the sayings preserved in Q. Theoretically, Q would have archived the full Sermon on the Mount. Matthew incorporated it into his gospel in a concentrated block — a three-chapter-long sermon. Luke, on the other hand, took many of the same sayings and separated them with longer stretches of action narrative, seeking to make a new form out of the formless collection of sayings. The sermon as it appears in Q was therefore never seen by John or Mark, who had no access to that document. It is only fully reproduced by Matthew.

One piece of evidence frequently cited for the existence of Q is that elements of it appear not only in the synoptic gospels but also in certain non-canonical texts — specifically in the recently translated Gospel of Thomas. The fact that certain textbook "Q"-type sayings also appear in this other book suggests that Q may in fact be real. Prior to the discovery of Thomas, "all known gospels were written as narratives; no other Sayings Gospel had ever been seen; it was an unknown gospel construct. But after the 1945 discovery of the Sayings Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi, the theory of Q became much more believable."

Conclusion

This theory makes the most sense when one considers the dramatic and theatrical style of the second half of each of these books, as well as the stoic and philosophical sensibility associated with Seneca's known work. Interestingly, "some recent questers after the Historical Jesus, including the Jesus Seminar, have been basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, proposing that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage more analogous to a Greek Cynic philosopher than to a Jewish rabbi." Seneca, of course, was one of the foremost figures in that philosophical tradition. In this scenario, the Sermon on the Mount might be seen as somewhat peripheral to the dramatic narrative — and hence suited only to a basic plot-driven account like Matthew's — yet it also served as a powerful vehicle for the philosophy of those who carried on Christ's teachings.

In conclusion, it is impossible to know with certainty why only one gospel contains the Sermon on the Mount in full while the others do not. Yet one may be certain that this omission — intentional or not — has some reflection on the truth. Each theory about the creation of the gospels generates a related theory about the inclusion of this sermon, and one could continue circling through these competing explanations indefinitely. What is clear is that the question itself is a productive one: this single textual anomaly opens onto some of the deepest and most consequential debates in New Testament scholarship.