Blessed is the man, begins the first of the Old Testament Psalms in a tidy yet compelling statement of the advantages of righteousness. There is little doubt this small gem of Hebrew literature with its variety of concise parallel devices was designed to be a poem. And yet the distinction between poetry and prose in Hebrew literature is not always clear. 

The Latter-day Saint scholar Kevin Barney has noted, “it is a commonplace that Hebrew poetry tends to the prosaic, just as Hebrew prose tends to the poetic.” Poetic Diction and Parallel Word Pairs in the Book of Mormon, Kevin L. Barney, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995, fn. 21. Mr. Barney further suggests the interested reader will find a lucid discussion of the issue in Kugel’s, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 59-95, “who argues that the very categories of poetry and prose are illusory when applied to Hebrew literature.”

How fitting it is, then, that this blurred distinction between poetry and prose in the Hebrew tradition should continue, and find its pinnacle achievement, in the first recorded public discourse of Jesus Christ, the Sermon on the Mount. The “sermon” begins with a poem, commonly known as the Beatitudes, which echoes the opening statement of the first Psalm, and expands the theme as to what constitutes blessedness. The term “Beatitudes” derives from St. Jerome’s Vulgate translation, where each of the opening verses begins with the Latin word, Beati, meaning those who are happy or fortunate or blessed. 

The Poetic Structure of Matthew’s Version

As I read the Beatitudes of Matthew’s gospel, I see essentially a poetic construct of eight sayings, all beginning with the word “Blessed” and identifying a certain condition, followed by an effect of that condition beginning with the word “for.” The construct is organized around a couple of poetic techniques.  The first is known as anaphora, (the Greek , meaning a “carrying back,” and refers to the repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning of several successive clauses.  An additional parallelism is employed known as “repeated alternate,” where the first lines of a couplet are synonymous, as are the second lines. Because of the use of anaphora and repeated alternate, the Beatitudes are relatively easy to commit to memory:

[a] Blessed are the poor in spirit:
[b] for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[a] Blessed are they that mourn:
[b] for they shall be comforted.

[a] Blessed are the meek:
[b] for they shall inherit the earth.

[a] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst for righteousness:
[b] for they shall be filled.

[a] Blessed are the merciful:
[b] for they shall obtain mercy.

[a] Blessed are the pure in heart:
[b] for they shall see God.

[a] Blessed are the peacemakers:
[b] for they shall be called the children of God.

[a] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake:
[b] for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The repetition of the line “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” in the second lines of both the first and last couplets creates a framework by which the poem has a clear beginning and closure. 

It could be noted that there is a ninth saying as well beginning with the word “Blessed,” but it is essentially a more elaborate repetition of the eighth saying, “Blessed are they which are persecuted” and does not present as a simple couplet. In addition, this ninth saying changes from the third person to the second person, and would seem to mark a transition from a collection of general principles in parallel couplets to a discourse of specific and direct application to the audience. Therefore, the poem proper would appear to be comprised of the first eight couplets. 

The Greek word translated as “Blessed” in the original Koine version of the New Testament isand in classical Greek meant “blessed” or “happy” as it pertained to the gods, and “blessed” or “fortunate” as it pertained to mankind. The Greek word translated as “for” in the second lines of the couplet is The parallelisms of the original structure are as evident in the original Greek as in any subsequent translation, regardless of the language, and unlike techniques of rhythm and rhyme, remain poetic in virtually any translation:

A Second Version in Luke

Immediately prior to the Sermon on the Mount beginning in Matthew 5, Jesus had called four disciples from their fishing nets, Peter, Andrew, James and John, and then began his public ministry going throughout all of Galilee teaching in synagogues and being followed by great multitudes of people, eventually being followed even into a mountain, where he delivered his famous sermon. 

Something like a second version of the Sermon on the Mount can be found in the gospel of Luke, chapter 6. In this version, Jesus had previously retreated to a mountain where he prayed throughout the night.  Upon the morrow he called together his disciples and chose twelve to be apostles, beginning with Peter, Andrew, James and John.  When they came down from the mountain and stood in the plain, a great multitude of people had gathered to hear Jesus, and he began a discourse, which contained many of the same maxims and parables as found in Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, including the turning of the other cheek, loving one’s enemies, taking a mote from one’s eyes, and building a house upon a rock.

Luke’s version of the sermon even begins with a variation of the Beatitudes.  We read beginning in Luke 6:20 that Jesus lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said, Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.  What follows then is a brief series of statements similar to the Beatitudes as we have it from Matthew, but fewer in number.  In Luke’s version, as in Matthew, the techniques of anaphora and repeated alternate are used. The statement “Blessed are ...” is repeated four times, as opposed to eight times in the Beatitudes:

[a] Blessed be ye poor:
[b] for yours is the kingdom of God.

[a] Blessed are ye that hunger now:
[b] for ye shall be filled.

[a] Blessed are ye that weep now:
[b] for ye shall laugh.

[a] Blessed are ye, when men … shall reproach you ...
[b] for (so) did their fathers unto the prophets.

However, not only are there slight differences in the four couplets of Luke’s version, it appears that Jesus developed an altogether different poem here. The four couplets presented in Luke are contrasted with their opposites. The additional technique employed is antimetabole meaning “a change in reverse,” a poetic technique that compares one idea against its opposite. 

The couplet that begins “Blessed are ye poor” in Luke 6:20 is contrasted with its opposite in verse 24, “But woe unto you that are rich.” Each of the other three couplets is in turn followed by its opposite as well. The Greek word translated for “woe” here is ou-ai (and is clearly onomatopoeic, that is, the word’s sound suggests its meaning, such as in the words “crack” or “sizzle”. What begins in Luke as a poem of hope turns into a biting polemic, rich with irony:

[a] Woe unto you that are rich!
[b] for ye have received your consolation.

[a] Woe unto you that are full!
[b] for ye shall hunger.

[a] Woe unto you that laugh now!
[b] for ye shall mourn and weep.

[a] Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!
[b] for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Two Poems or One?

Why are there two versions of a poem that begins with the selfsame lines? One theory is the possibility of corruption in the text. Perhaps Jesus delivered a single poem as we have it in the Beatitudes of Matthew, but Luke, or some other writer took liberties with the text and embellished it into an altogether different poem. 

Another theory, which apparently finds acceptance mostly among academics, is the possibility that Jesus never spoke either poem in the first place, but that the gospel writers created a literary Jesus from the historical Jesus, and in the process would have created their own versions of the poems. Another theory is the possibility that both gospel writers were absolutely accurate, and that Jesus did indeed deliver two different poems. Perhaps he delivered the Beatitudes as we have it in Matthew on one occasion, and then on a later occasion, drew from that poem and created another to serve a different purpose for a different audience. 

The poem in Luke is so striking I want to believe that Jesus did fashion and recite it precisely as we have it, different from the version in Matthew. Several factors may support this view. First, the settings of the two poems appear to be different. While both sermons apparently took place on or near a mountain, the sermon in Matthew may have taken place early in Jesus’ ministry, since Peter, Andrew, James and John at that time were only called as disciples. In Luke’s version, however, they and eight others had just been called as apostles. Second, in the chapter preceding Luke’s version, Jesus had been criticized by the Pharisees, who had, on at least three occasions, questioned his authority to forgive sins, chided his disciples for not fasting like Pharisees, and rebuked him for what they considered a profaning of the Sabbath. With this backdrop to the sermon in Luke, it would seem only natural and appropriate for Jesus to alter the couplets of the Beatitudes and deliver a stinging rebuke to the Pharisees. 

Third, the version of the sermon in Luke is so highly truncated in comparison to the version in Matthew it seems unlikely that two witnesses were transcribing the same discourse. The differences in the two versions of the sermons are pronounced enough to suggest two different occasions and settings, and therefore, the possibility of two different poems. 

Fourth, while the poem in Luke is initially a shortened version of the Beatitudes, it nevertheless adds material that is, in and of itself, quite original and striking. The voice of authority that had astonished people and caused them to exclaim, Never spake man like this, is also richly manifest in the polemic that Jesus added to the Luke version of the poem. Those that heard the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew recognized that Jesus taught "as one having authority, and not as the scribes,” and the alteration in Luke rings with a similar power and authority arguably well beyond the limited capabilities of a mere scribe.

A Genius for Improvisation

Accepting the premise that Jesus delivered two different poems in Matthew and Luke is a fascinating prospect, suggesting that Jesus, as a poet, had ingenious powers of improvisation. Kevin Barney, in Poetic Diction and Parallel Word Pairs in the Book of Mormon cited above, posits an interesting theory that the Hebrew poetic tradition may well have been highly improvisational. 

He notes: “In the ancient Near East a traditional stock of parallel word pairs appears to have existed, which the poet could use as the foundation for different parallel lines. Rather than composing every couplet completely from scratch, by beginning with an appropriate word pair the poet would already have at hand the skeletal structure for a parallel expression; it would then be much easier to flesh out the basic idea in full parallel lines.” With word pairs, the poet had at ready “disposal a large stock of words or phrases, which made possible the rapid oral composition of the poetry.” 

One of the traditional word pairs Mr. Barney identifies is the pair of antonyms “blessed and cursed.” While we do not have the original verses of Jesus’ poem in Luke, probably delivered in Aramaic, the Greek words for “blessed” (makapioi) and for “woe” (ouai) suggest the same dichotomy as “blessed” and “cursed.” Through the use of this word pair, Jesus had a ready vehicle by which to contrast the first four statements of hope with their opposites. Every concept simply needed to be reversed. The blessed were set in opposition to the cursed.  The hungry who would become full were set in opposition to the full who would become hungry. This basic “formula” would indeed allow for a rapid composition.

To shed additional light on this question of improvisation, additional texts that include verses from the Beatitudes might also be consulted. One such text is the Gospel of Thomas, a Coptic manuscript that comprised part of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. Unfortunately, this text does not prove particularly helpful. Although it is comprised almost exclusively of sayings of Jesus, only a few of the verses of the Beatitudes survived in the manuscript:

(54) Jesus said, Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.

(68) Jesus said, Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted. Wherever you have been persecuted they will find no place.

(69) Jesus said, Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the father. 

(69) Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires shall be filled. 

(The Nag Hammadi Library in English, James M. Robinson, editor, San Francisco: Harper Collins 1978).

While the variation in these statements might suggest the possibility of additional improvisation, several factors also argue against it. The preserved statements are somewhat scattered in the text and there is an utter lack of any coherent poetic form. The couplet technique is also inconsistent: only two of the couplets have the “Blessed are … for” format. These factors suggest an equally plausible theory that the text of the Beatitudes in the Gospel of Thomas is simply a corruption.

The Book of Mormon Version

On the other hand, reference to the Book of Mormon would seem to lend support to the premise that the poem of the Beatitudes as rendered by Jesus was a corpus of material susceptible to improvisation as occasion might require. Of course, reference to this source presupposes its authenticity as a text of the sayings of Jesus, but the passage particularly in 3 Nephi 11:1-2 is so intricate and compelling a poetic statement that not only does it argue for the theory of improvisation in the Beatitudes, but it also argues, at least indirectly, for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a body of scripture delivered by Jesus.

Immediately prior to the version of the Sermon on the Mount delivered to the Nephite people, Jesus has selected and instructed twelve apostles. He then turned to the multitude and addressed them with what can perhaps be best characterized as a preamble to the Beatitudes. The preamble at first would appear to be mere prose, but closer examination reveals again that the distinction between prose and poetry in the Hebrew literary tradition frequently becomes blurred and here the prose definitely tends to the poetic.  An excised version of this preamble is presented here to highlight the poetic elements:

[a] Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed…                  [A]
I will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost             [1]

[a] Blessed are ye if ye shall believe…                      [A]
After that ye have seen me and know that I am          [2]

[a] blessed are they who shall believe…                    [B]
That ye have seen me and that ye know that I am      [2]

[a] blessed are they who shall believe…                    [B]
For they shall be visited with fire and the Holy Ghost   [1]

The preamble, as with both versions of the Beatitudes in Matthew and Luke, employs the technique of anaphora, the repetition of the word “Blessed” in four successive phrases (designated by the small “a” to the left of the lines). However, each one of these phrases emphasizes not just similar concepts, but precisely the same concept, the blessedness of belief, thereby setting a foundation for the Beatitudes that follow: that is, the condition of blessedness and happiness must necessarily begin with belief in Christ. 

Further, unlike the forms in both Matthew and Luke, these verses do not present as simple couplets. On the contrary, the verses here display a more complex intricacy. The first lines of the first two sets of verses (as designated by the capital “A” to the right of the lines) are addressed to the immediate audience in the second person. The first lines of the second two sets of verses (designated by the capital “B”) are addressed to a future third person audience. Thus, these two subgroups present a logical pairing of parallel concepts regarding who necessarily must believe. The intricacy of the preamble culminates in the chiasm presented by the second lines of each of the four sets of verses (designated by the numbers “1,2,2,1”). The chiasm here is a repetition of the two phrases [1] “I will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost” and [2] “ye have seen me and know that I am” presented in one order and then repeated in reverse order. 

The combination of these diverse poetic elements in the preamble is thoroughly polished and yet at the same time depicted as spontaneous. We are not confronted by a haphazard “free verse” here, but by something quite the contrary, a structured poetic introduction that flows very naturally and logically into the first of the Beatitudes given in 3 Nephi: Blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

I might be accused of being something of a scribe myself in exalting the minutiae of these poetic techniques, as though I were merely straining at so many gnats, but there is a point to this tedium.  An understanding of the complex and fluid form of the Beatitudes, as rendered respectively in Matthew, Luke and Nephi, reveals the presence of an incredibly consistent, sophisticated, and spontaneous intelligence. 

The form, in its variety and subtlety, is itself a witness of the divine voice at work. It is itself something of a miracle, and unlike the miracles of walking on water, or turning water into wine, which the believing Christian takes on faith and which the skeptic may conveniently dismiss as ancient fable, the miracle of the Beatitudes as we have them in Matthew, Luke and Nephi are clearly and undeniably manifest to present view, as though etched in stone by the finger of God, and are absolutely incapable of dismissal, at least by the honest, discerning reader. There is indeed a sign in the literary form of the Beatitudes – a signature so to speak – as clear as a red sky at evening, and those with eyes to see, will both see it and read it to their full edification.