Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 12-20-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Back to the OP, where did the SOTM come from. Buy Robert Price's The Deconstructing Jesus. On p151 ff he lists all of Q1 and how it relates to then-current thought. I'll quote the first three sayings, which are relevant to the OP.

Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.
Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca)
We should not get rid of poverty, but only our opinion of it. Then we shall have plenty. (Epictetus)

Blessed are those who hunger, for they shall be filled.
People used to see Diogenes shivering out in the open, often going thirsty. (Dio)
Herakles cared nothing about heat or cold, and had no use for a mattress or a woolly cape or a rug. Dressed in a dirty animal skin, living hungry, he helped the good and punished the wicked. (Dio)

Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh.
"Don't you want to know why I never laugh? It's not because I hate people, but because I detest their wickedness. ... You are astonished because I don't laugh, but I'm astonished at those who do, happy in their wrong-doing when they ought to be dejected at failing to do what's right." (Pseudo-Heraclitus)

OK, one more because I have posted it before:

I say to you, love your enemies.
Bless those who curse you.
Pray for those who mistreat you.
A rather nice part of being a Cynic comes when you have to be beaten by an ass, and throughout the beating you have to love those who are beating you as though you were father or brother to them. (Epictetus)
How shall I defend myself against my enemy? By being good and kind towards him, replied Diogenes. (Gnomologium Vaticanum)
Someone gets angry with you. Challenge him with kindness in return. Enmity immediately tumbles away when one side lets it fall. (Seneca)

Gerard Stafleu

Thanks for those. Much of this is not just selective HB mining, but principles that cut across cultures. Hence the baffling insistance by Christians that they are unique in some of the things Jesus allegedly said.

jgibson000 · 12-20-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalUWxBill

Ahh. I searched for posts by Malachi. His last post was yesterday at 7:41 AM

Where do you get this? The post I replied to at approximately 11:30am yesterday was posted on December 19, 2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

That is before you responded to his post regarding the Hellenizing of OT teachings for the SOTM. So, basically Malachi probably has not been on the board since then or only very briefly.

Maybe so. But look at other threads he's started or contributed to where I posted questions about whether the claims he was making therein were well informed. He never answered any of those either, even though he was online when, or came back online after, I asked them. So there's good reason to interpret his refusal to answer my questions as avoidance behaviour signyfying that he doesn't want to reveal that he is not well -- or even minimally -- informed with respect the things he pontificates about.

Jeffrey Gibson

CalUWxBill · 12-21-2006, 02:17 AM

You live in central time zone I'm in eastern that's why we're off on the time by an hour. As far as his serial behavior with regards to your posts I guess you have your point. But, I wouldn't assume he's under informed.

Flyboy · 12-21-2006, 03:53 AM

I remembered reading something about the sermon on the mount in Bertrand Russell's 'The History of Western Philosophy.' After looking it up it seems to give a source for much of it. I quote from it below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The History of Western Philosophy

...Take, for instance, "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," written between 109 and 107 B.C. by a Pharisee who admired John Hyrcanus, a high priest of the Hasmonean dynasty. This book, in the form in which we have it, contains Christian interpolations, but these are all concerned with dogma. When they are excised, the ethical teaching remains closely similar to that of the Gospels. As the Rev. Dr. R. H. Charles says: "The Sermon on the Mount reflects in several instances the spirit and even reproduces the very phrases of our text; many passages in the Gospels exhibt traces of the same, and St. Paul seems to have used the book as a vade mecum"... We find in this book such precepts as the following:

"Love ye one another from the heart; and if a man sin against thee, speak peaceably to him, and in thy soul hold not guile; and if he repent and confess, forgive him. But if he deny it, do not get into a passion with him, lest catching the poision from thee he take to swearing, and so then sin doubly....And if he be shameless and persist in wrong-doing, even so forgive him from the heart, and leave to God the avenging."

Dr. Charles is of opinion that Christ must have been acquainted with this passage. Again we find:

"Love the Lord and your neighbour."
...
There is a reprobation of all hatred in "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs"; for instance:

"Anger is blindness, and does not suffer one to see the face of any man with truth."

"Hatred, therefore is evil; for it constantly mateth with lying."...

jakejonesiv · 12-21-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinumb

I'm told Gandhi reckoned SOTM the greatest set of teaching ever. Hence Jesus was one of the world's greatest thinkers.

Given that nothing Jesus was said to have preached was an original thought, can anyone point me to a web source that gives the origins of thoughts/philosophy expressed in SOTM. Failing that any help in linking any of Matthew's account to the OT would be appreciated.

Thanks
Rich

Many of the points in the Sermon on the Mount are already contained in James in a more prosaic form. But none of it is attributed to Jesus. In fact Jesus is only mentioned twice (1:1, 2:1), raising the possibility that this document was only lightly Christianized.

Matt. 5:12, James 5:10
Matt. 5:22, James 3:6
Matt. 5:28, James 1:14,15
Matt. 5:34, James 5:12

Jake Jones IV

hatsoff · 12-21-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

No. What we know *for sure* is that similar language (verbatim language) is used in Mt. and Lk. as we have it. Your assumption is that verbatim language means one common source document.

No, that is not my assumption. Verbatim language similarities prove a documentary relationship. A common source document is the most likely, but not the only plausible such.

Quote:

The difference is that it is very possible that Jesus actually gave the sermon on the two seperate occaisions as recorded in Mt. and Lk. respectively.

It is possible Jesus gave a Beatitudes-type sermon on two occasions, but it is not plausible to say Matthew *and* Luke record those two occasions with any degree of accuracy. Infinitely more likely is that they both record a the general themes of one or more of Jesus' teachings, or, better yet, that the teachings were never taught by Jesus at all.

Quote:

Ok, I think this is where we are misunderstanding eachother.

My whole point about itinerant preachers repeating formulaic, verbatim material on multiple occaisions is to show that this material could have been transmitted in two separate sources -one containing verbatim similarities to the other- *without* elements from one source having been incorporated to the other. (Someone recording Dr. King's Detroit speech would have verbatim similarites to someone recording Dr. King's Washington speech without one taking elements from the other.)

Thus, we could very possibly have two seperate occaisions of Jesus actually teaching the material being recorded in either the same or two separate sources.... *meaning* Mt. and Lk. would not have necessarily adapted or altered the material... merely they could have used the two *seperate* events (SotM and SotP) as they were actualy recorded in their source(s).

This *might* be a tenable argument, except that you're mustn't ignore the rest of the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke. The documentary relationship is clear, and undercuts any effort to explain similarities as resulting from historical accuracy--especially when you factor in the language transition (Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Actually, I'm not arguing that here. That takes faith to believe

Please note I didn't say you were arguing for a high degree of historicity, but for the *possibility* thereof. And....

Quote:

What I'm arguing is because we don't have the sources...

that it is just as likely that

A. there was source material for "the sermon" for both the occaision on the mount and the occaision on the plain

as it is that

B. Mt. and Lk. adapted their versions from one source (with no occaision given)

Just because we don't have all the puzzle pieces doesn't mean we can't rule out certain possibilities. I can and still maintain that it is not reasonable to claim the accounts *might* be historically accurate to such a degree that the differences between Matthew and Luke reflect real historical variations in Jesus preaching rotation. That's beyond plausibility.

John Kesler · 12-21-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Infinitely more likely is that they both record a the general themes of one or more of Jesus' teachings, or, better yet, that the teachings were never taught by Jesus at all.

Why is the option that the teachings don't go back to Jesus "better yet"?

hatsoff · 12-21-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Why is the option that the teachings don't go back to Jesus "better yet"?

That is, more likely.

John Kesler · 12-21-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

That is, more likely.

Okay, why is it more likely that Jesus is not the source of the sermon? In A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (or via: amazon.co.uk), Craig S. Keener notes on page 162 that, "ancient writers excercised the freedom to rearrange sayings, often topically...Matthew thus adds considerable material to the earlier compilation on which Luke also draws...just as various recensions of rabbinic collections could vary on details..." Please tell me why your solution is to be preferred to Keener's.

hatsoff · 12-21-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Okay, why is it more likely that Jesus is not the source of the sermon? In A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Craig S. Keener notes on page 162 that, "ancient writers excercised the freedom to rearrange sayings, often topically...Matthew thus adds considerable material to the earlier compilation on which Luke also draws...just as various recensions of rabbinic collections could vary on details..." Please tell me why your solution is to be preferred to Keener's.

Please tell me what else Keener said, first. Your quote does not include any kind of assertion that Jesus is behind the sayings, much less a justification for making one. I can't very well present a counter-argument when the initial argument has not been given.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2006, 02:17 AM	#53
CalUWxBill Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 133	You live in central time zone I'm in eastern that's why we're off on the time by an hour. As far as his serial behavior with regards to your posts I guess you have your point. But, I wouldn't assume he's under informed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.