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.

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.


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).

dzim77

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

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)

rlogan

Likely that most here expect someone to summarize a position as opposed to being assigned "homework" under the premise that the answer is "in there somewhere".

jgibson000

Leaving aside the fact that my question was not to you, and that, unless you are a mind reader, you actually had no business answering it, let alone in telling me what most here are "likely" to expect, I'd be grateful for your kindness in actually taking a close look at what I wrote before you take potshots at me for doing something I did not do.

As is plain, the question I asked "Malachi151"(sheesh)" was whether he could illustrate and support his claim that Jesus' teaching in the SoM is OT material that's been "Hellenized (a) with evidence and (b) with citations from commentators on the SOM that he surely has read, given the air of informed authority and note of absolute certainty in/with which he made his claim.

In other words, I wasn't assigning "Malachi151" homework. I was asking him about what the "homework" was that he has presumably already done.

I'm sorry you were apparently unable to see this distinction.

But be that as it may, here is a question for you.

Do you think "Malachi" is particularly well informed on (a) the SoM, (b) as well informed as he'd have to be to speak as authoritatively and as apodictically as he presumes to speak on it, and (c) has read what scholars like Betz et al. have said about it?

JG

Toto

Jeffrey: this is an open board. You might notice that Malachi151 has never answered any of your questions, which is his right. You also have the right to comment on his silence, and others may draw whatever conclusions they wish. Just don't take it personally that he is ignoring you.

Malachi's site is http://rationalrevolution.net - you can find his real name there, and more of his purpose and worldview.

jgibson000

I'm not sure how it is that IIDB being an open board mitigates one's obligations to be responsible for one's claims, especially when someone postures as an authority and thinks that those he addresses on this board should listen to and accept as true what one posts, as "Malalchi" so often does.

Would he be excused his typical IIDB refusal to assume responsibility for his claims by those Skeptic Groups to whom he lectures if he did the same thing with them?

[QUOTE]You also have the right to comment on his silence, and others may draw whatever conclusions they wish.

What conclusions do you draw?

I'm not. But is "ignoring me" what he is doing? I should think "doing a Kuchinsky" and "running away from showing he doesn't have the knowledge he claims to possess" is a much better and far more apt description.

Thanks.

Jeffrey

CalUWxBill

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

rlogan

I did just now, and fair play does dictate I acknowledge your post was specifically to Malachi151 and requesting he back up his assertion.

(fat chance of that, to answer your question directed at me)


What the list of citations does suggest though is that you have an opinion formulated on that basis which bears directly on our subject.

I empathize with your frustration regarding the loose canon. It fires everything from rusty nails to old pastry and mattess stuffing. I do believe there are nerve synapses firing the canon, but the circuitry is of mysterious design.

Since my response there did not articulate the desired inquiry, perhaps you could comment on what the upshot is of said sources as it relates to the originality of the Sermon on the Hill, and Hebrew Bible or other inspirational source material.

Regards.

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

skinumb

I don't think I said great thinkers have to be original - though it is a matter of opinion whether they should be - nor did I say SotM weren't great thoughts - though again that is debatable. At this moment I am more interested in the origins of the thoughts ascribed to him, and when and why they might have been synthesised into the sayings of a mythical figure.

Rich