hatsoff

Basically it is because the differences between Matthew's and Luke's sermons were introduced when one or both evangelists copied material from a written source. For what you are proposing to have actually happened, several things must also have happened, each less likely than the last. First of all, the original written source (be it Q, Matthew or Luke) must have been historically reliable to high degree; second, another, separate source must also have been historically reliable; third, at least one evangelist must have integrated linguistic elements of the first source into the second source without significantly compromising the latter's historicity; fourth, the other evangelist must have adapted his source(s) while maintaining historical accuracy. Each one of these prerequisites is already very, very unlikely. The odds of all being true are therefore astronomically bad.

That's not at issue. I agree it is quite plausible Jesus had some core material which underwent minor changes from sermon to sermon. The question is, do Matthew's and Luke's accounts reflect actual historical differences between two of such? They almost certainly do not.

The differences don't negate the verbatim similarities. Even though the material was uniquely adapted by one or both evangelists, it is still clear they have a direct documentary relationship.

mdarus

1. The debate concerning the textual relationship of Matthew's and Luke's version of the sermon is interesting, but really is just a rabbit trail compared to an actual study of the content.
2. The SOTM is sometimes dismissed as impossible or impractical but this is do to a failure to understand the literature. In "Kingdom Ethics", Glenn Stassen does an admirable job of identifying a viable ethic from the sermon.
3. It is not necessary to prove that Jesus' thoughts in the sermon are unique. The concept of revelation includes the infusion of ideas in preparation to a message from a prophet. We should expect Old Testament precursors.
4. To debate whether the thoughts are Jesus', Matthew's, or Luke's can be interesting, but impossible to determine.
5. The influence of the sermon has been historically significant. It is not improper to credit this influence to Jesus.
6. If the best of the sermon is reflected in other religions or ethical systems, this is a strength, not a weakness.

hatsoff

1. Well, all of it is academic. The practical use of all Biblical studies is limited to a circular cycle of learning and teaching. The importance of the focus depends on your perspective.
2. I've never heard of anyone dismissing it as impossible. Whether or not it is practical is a matter of opinion.
3. It is necessary if you wish to use it as a premise for other arguments.
4. Impossible to determine absolutely? Sure. But we can still make judgments about what is most likely, sometimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. While he may have had an indirect influence on the canonical writings, it is indeed improper to ascribe the teachings themselves to Jesus.
6. I would call it a curiousity, not a strength or weakness.

dzim77

Your four-step process is purely guesswork and only one of many possibilites. Correct?

My point is that it is not 'astronomically improbable' for there to have been a record (oral, eyewitness, written, from one source or from multiple, take your pick...) of Jesus teaching this same material on two different occaisions... once 'on a mountainside' and once 'in a level place'. Since we don't have the sources of Mt. and Lk., you have no basis to say otherwise, IMO.

The formulaic nature of the teachings suggest that they may have been repeated frequently in different contexts as I mentioned above.

"Blessed are you... for you will..."
"You have heard... but I tell you..."


Whether Matt. and Luke have recorded 'verbatim' what Jesus said on the given occaision is another matter... I am suggesting that Jesus taught with the material in question on at least two occaisions (most likely many more) - once 'on a mountainside' and once on 'a level place'.


Why should verbatim similarities negate the idea that Jesus actually used the teaching material on two separate occaisions as Mt. and Luke. have presented? In fact, that is exactly my point... as an itinerant preacher Jesus should be expected to use verbatim similarities on separate occaisions.

Here is an exerpt from Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream speech" on August 28, 1963 in Washington DC (source)


Here is an exerpt for Dr. King's speech at the March in Detroit on June 23, 1963. (source) Notice the verbatim similarities.

Of course this Dr. King example does not take into account the 1st century methods of transmission, rather, it's an illustration of my point.

hatsoff

Dzim77, I'm not sure you understand what I was telling you. It doesn't matter whether or not Jesus used a formulaic structure for multiple sermons. The documentary connection between Matthew and Luke all but rules out the possibility that they show actual differences between two real sermons by Jesus, because it shows in part how the evangelists operated. That relationship is not easily explained in conjunction with a presupposition of historical accuracy. Take a look at the four conditions I outlined before and you should see what I mean by that. They are not guesswork, but logical prerequisites.

Mageth

"Utterly unique"? A claim I often hear made. But it's simply (and demonstrably) not so.

My quotes are samplings from: http://www.unification.net/ws/theme144.htm

Buddhism (Dhammapada 3-5):

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me!" In those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred is appeased.

Hatreds never cease through hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law.

Jainism (Vitaragastava 14.5):

My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.

Sikhism (Adi Granth, Asa-ki-Var, M.2, p. 474):

What kind of love is this that to another can shift? Says Nanak, True lovers are those who are forever absorbed in the Beloved. Whoever discriminates between treatment held good or bad, Is not a true lover--he rather is caught in calculations.

Taoism (Tao Te Ching 49):

The sage has no fixed [personal] ideas.
He regards the people's ideas as his own.
I treat those who are good with goodness,
And I also treat those who are not good with goodness.
Thus goodness is attained.

I am honest with those who are honest,
And I am also honest with those who are dishonest.
Thus honesty is attained.

Taoism (Tao Te Ching 63):

Do good to him who has done you an injury.

Hinduism (Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115):

A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them--for who is without fault?


Now, as to:

I'd submit that the above quotations from other religious texts (and, indeed, their teachings in general) at least suggest such a notion.

However, I'd further submit that your take on Jesus' teaching - that one is somehow "as bad as a murderer" just for having "anger in your heart" - is certainly not a "moral" teaching that I, or most other moral, thoughtful humans, would agree with.

dzim77

How do you know Mt and Lk used a common source for their SotM/SotP materials?

How do you know this supposed source did not contain two occaisions of the teaching or two different forms of it?

How do you know there was only one source of these particular teachings of Jesus? (i.e... that SotM was not from "M" and SotP was not from "L"?)

They are only necessary prerequisites if you hold certain assumptions about Matt and Luke's source(s).

More specifically...

yes, but possibility of the source is not limited to Q, Mt, Lk...

yes, or the same source contained both occaisions of the teaching

No, this is not necessary. Let's say sources "M" and "L" each had record of this teaching on each of the respective occaisions.

No, it may not have been necessary for the source to be adapted.

It seems your argument rests on the assumptions that there was only one original source of this teaching and that it only contained one occaision or one form of the teaching. It is a big assumption since we do not have the source(s)

Can you explain why it is 'astronomically' more likely that there was one original source of the teaching from which Mt. and Lk. adapted their material vs. there being one/or multiple sources with two occaisions/forms of the teaching?

Since we do not have the sources I suggest that one scenario cannot be called more or less likely than the other... much less 'astronomically' more likely.

jgibson000

Is there a legitimate reason you haven't answered my questions?

Jeffrey Gibson

hatsoff

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that there is some documentary connection.

Okay, I'll concede this point. It doesn't really make any difference, though.

Because of the verbatim similarities between the two accounts as we have them today. Even if there were two separate sources (or two accounts within the same source, treated separately), there is no question that elements from the one was incorporated into the other, whether by the evangelist(s) or by the author of the underlying written source(s).

It doesn't matter. Besides, additional sources just makes the alleged historical accuracy that much less plausible.

Fair enough; I did overlook that possibility. Still, as mentioned above, the circumstances necessary for what you propose to have actually happened is only slightly improved by this possibility. Very slightly.

That doesn't explain the linguistic similarities. The only alternative I can see is that, if the source material of the evangelists was made up of two narratives by the same author, it was that underlying work where the fusing between interpretive language and alleged history took place. In other words, the problem is shifted onto another culprit, not solved.

But we know that it was based on the evangelists' treatment of other sources.

I think it is the best explanation given the evidence, but that's the conclusion of my argument, not the premise.

That is not what I believe. There may well have been two sources, or three or four... The point is, Matthew and Luke do not represent historical variance in Jesus' actual preaching.

Missing evidence does not prevent us from establishing the likelihood of scenarios based on extant evidence.

As I finish this post I realize I was a bit too hasty in closing off other possibilities for extreme hypotheticals, but my point remains the same. What you're doing is inventing elaborate and implausible explanations to satisfy an argument of historicity. But the evidence just isn't there. Not only do you propose that the sermon on the mount may have actually taken place, but you're saying the accounts of Matthew and Luke might be so precise that their differences represent actual variations between two of Jesus' real sermons! I'm sorry, but that is just incredibly unlikely, no matter how you look at it. What I've touched on is only the tip of the iceberg. Once you begin analysing the rest of the Synoptic material, you end up with problem after problem, none of them consistent with your historicity proposal. It's just a wholly implausible idea, plain and simple.

judge

Why must a great thinker have original thoughts? Why not just great thoughts?