Historical questions

[cam1641]

The Sermon is another later insertion by a scribe. These words were actually previously used, so they weren’t even original.

 

[PJM]

=mystagogia87;8491106]Today I was reading my Bible and I noticed that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer are not in the gospels of Mark and John.

This bothers me. I believe that Mark was written by a companion of Peter, and John was written by John. Wouldn’t Mark and John know about these very important teachings? Why would these most-quoted teachings of Jesus be absent from two of the gospels?

I am inclined to think that the prayer and the sermon are distillations of many teachings of Jesus, and that different authors distilled them differently. Still, this issue really bothers me. Do any of you have any thoughts as to why the prayer and the sermon would be absent from John and Mark?

Thanks for the astute question.

Seveal factors come into focus by necessity in making my reply.

First, Matthew is accredited as having written the first Gospel, and therefore no further expression to the same crowd was deemed necessary. Matthew was teaching the yet to be converted Jews. His text would have been available for the others, at least in parts for there own teaching efforts.

Second. One needs to factor in the author himself. His background and his impressions. they were wittness personally for much of what they taught and shared [Luke excepted]. Keep in mind that it is HIGHLY unlikely that any of the NT was written with the clear understanding, that like the OT, it would last for generations; even centuries. One cannot rule out that knowledge but each Gospel and the writtings of Paul give stong evidence to this fact, by being focused on a precise condition, group and set of circumstances.

Further; it seems that to a signifiant degree, one can see a “faith-building-block” approach being used by God in the background. They were adding to, more than rewritting, as the Holy Spirit guided them to do.

Each author came from there own expereinces and there own background. Certainly EVERYTHING that Christ did was both signifiant and important; but as John says towards the end of his writting:

**John.20: 30 - 31"**Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

**John.21: 24-25 **“This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

There is logic in understanding that because of the dispersion caused by threats of life; there was little note comaparisions taking place. ALL of this of course is guided and inspired by God Himself.

Third: Another logical factor was that the illeratcy was dominate and the norm; and the cost and availbility of parchment and other materials was expensive and hard to come by.

Fourth: If any [IMO] teaching or act OUGHT TO have been repeated, it would have been **Matthew 16: 15-19…**the appointment of Peter; the transfer of the keys to heaven, and what this obliagted. Clearly the reason it was not is because ALL understood it, accepeted it, and abided by it. There was no further discusiion of who was in charge.

Matthews Gospel was to the very same group that may have heard it from Jesus Himself. Charity was both LAW and Tradition of long practice and command in the Jewish faith. And while that word “LOVE” can be used to singularly describe the entire bible; not all of the other cuntures felt the same comfort factor with this concept. The Apostles were effectivrly SELLING “Jesus” as well as teaching Jesus. They used what God inspired them to be the most effective in the conversion and salvation of souls.

I supect one could take each of the gospels and find good reason to ask your question of why not? In the end we trust that God accomplished exactly what God inteneded.

GREAT JOB!
God Bless,
Pat

 

[patrick457]

The Sermon is another later insertion by a scribe. These words were actually previously used, so they weren’t even original.

Not quite. While you’re correct that some of the ideas expressed in the Sermon are not original to Jesus but have precedents in contemporary Jewish thought, I don’t think that those are later insertions into the text. Pray tell, is there a manuscript of Matthew or Luke where the Sermon section is absent.

Jesus is ‘original’ not so much because His teaching was something ‘unique’ and ‘brand-new’, something that no one has ever thought of until now - since a number of His teachings do have parallels among different Jewish groups at the time, such as the Pharisees - but because He has managed to meld all of these different ideas together, thereby producing a distinct flavor unique to Him.

 

[cam1641]

They were certainly added as the earlier copies do not have the sermon.

Patrick, if your belief in JC was false, would you want to know?

If so, what critical research have you done in this area?

As a former Catholic, I took this stance and the overwhelming evidence showed JC to be just another in a long line of “Sons of God”.

Faith is beleving what you know ain’t so.

Mark Twain.

 

[patrick457]

They were certainly added as the earlier copies do not have the sermon.

Patrick, if your belief in JC was false, would you want to know?

If so, what critical research have you done in this area?

As a former Catholic, I took this stance and the overwhelming evidence showed JC to be just another in a long line of “Sons of God”.

Faith is beleving what you know ain’t so.

Mark Twain.

Such as? Name these supposed NT manuscripts where the Sermon is clearly not part of the original text. (Manuscripts where the relevant portions no longer survive do not count.) I’ve got time to spare.

And by Jesus being ‘just another in a long line of “Sons of God”,’ are we talking something a Jewish context here, or a Kersey Graves (The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, 1875)-type stuff?

I’ll return your question back at you first: what critical research have YOU done in this area?

 

[SGWessells]

I just happen to have started taking a formal bible study course.

One of the interesting aspects is that the Old Testament as we know it is a written text of an oral history. As other posters have said, … how do you capture so much richness in a “human-sized” written text?

For example, it is obvious that Adam and Eve had to have had MANY MANY children, yet we know only about three of them.

And we know very little of Cain’s children, yet Cain founded a city … so he must have had MANY MANY children.

I was teasing my pastor that so much “stuff” is not mentioned in the Old Testament that perhaps I purchased the “abridged edition”.

It’s difficult to cover adequately the story of THOUSANDS of years of history and “nuances” and perhaps MILLIONS of people … and all those teachings … and to do so in a relatively few pages.

And the Bible sys that God drowned all but eight of those MANY, MANY grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc… Gen. ch. 6,7.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Attention: I am inventing ! But it could be this way:
Mark was the first and wrote what it considered important.
Luke and Matthew came next and wrote The Sermon because it was not in Mark.
John, knowing that the Sermon was in Matthew and Luke, prefered to say other more theological things.
I am inventing but somehting of this kind or other could have happened.

Mark has always struck me as a redacted set of letters from the same source. Some scholars believe parts of it were written during Jesus lifetime. It’s like a travelogue from someone who followed Jesus’ early ministry throughout Palestine before He spent so much time in Jerusalem. I believe (with the same caveat you gave) that the bulk of it is an eyewitness account written by one of the first disciples or possibly one of the Apostles. Those kinds of letters would be necessarily short and not contain whole long speeches.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No, I do not know.
Actually, the Sermon was not preached as it is. It is a collection of tradictions. Or maybe it could be preached as it is. We do not know.
Anyhow, you say it is important. but remember that the Gospels were not written having you in mind nor they compared themselves to each other. Each one had a purpose and so they wrote what they considered more important.
Attention: I am inventing ! But it could be this way:
Mark was the first and wrote what it considered important.
Luke and Matthew came next and wrote The Sermon because it was not in Mark.
John, knowing that the Sermon was in Matthew and Luke, prefered to say other more theological things.
I am inventing but somehting of this kind or other could have happened.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from.
The so called professors of literary architecture devised this scenario from so-called ‘internal evidence’, but they forgot the external evidence, and the implied evidence.
Actually, we have two gospels, not four. They are Matthew and John. The other two are collections. Mark is a collection of the reminincences of Peter, taken towards the end of his life, the other is a collection of proto-gospels and traditions collected by Luke, to be used on Paul’s mission to the nations. Luke and Acts together form a single two part document.

There had been a serious split in the church, and the original teachings of Our Lord had been to some extent, varied by Paul, and these documents were produced to correct these variances.
Evidence: All the Gospel documents were published AFTER Paul’s epistles.
Corrections come after errors, not vice versa.
Which is the earliest Gospel,? Well both John and Matthew contain contemporay accounts, but then both Matthew and John were educated and literate.
Matthew was a tax collector, (and also an accountant, and by implication, a census keeper.) In his work he needed to be able to take contemporaneous notes, and thus he had skill in a form of ‘short-hand’. This is why his accounts are so full of vivid description. As he was writing, he still had his note before him. He even recalls from his notes exactly how he was called!
John was also educated, but this time, in the tradition of the Temple of Jerusalem. He then understood the traditions of the law, and the esoteric mysteries.
Peter was an illiterate fisherman. He was the man for the heavy work. He did transport and logistics. Like a taxi driver, he heard many things, and was a trusted friend, but his understanding of the big picture was limited.
Neither mark, nor Luke were apostles. Their contemporaneous reports are hear-say, though that does not make them false.
Though Matthew’s Gospel was finished late, it was composed using notes taken during the mission of Our Lord, so much of its content is then contemporaneous, and that is why it is so vividly alive.
That is why Tatian chose Matthew’s Gospel to be the main thread of his work.
John’s Gospel, though far more esoteric, still contains much contemporaneous witness, he was, after all, present on the mission, and, being literate, would have taken notes. He also, by some tradition, became the guardian of Our Lady, and probably also the Magdalen. He recounts vividly their recollections. John’s Gospel then is the other strand of Tatian’s work. The other two Gospels are only used in a very fragmentary manner, as and when they fit in.
The external evidence of this is that that both Matthew and John can be reconstructed from Tatian’s work to a degree of completeness about 85%, whereas the other two, together are so fragmentary, that little continuous witness can be found, apart from Luke’s opening and Nativity.
So, here you have a different picture.
Not quite the traditional picture, but quite contrary to the picture generated by the ‘cogniscenti’.
The actual facts are lost in the mists of time.
You have to choose which witness to trust, and by how much.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Mark has always struck me as a redacted set of letters from the same source. Some scholars believe parts of it were written during Jesus lifetime. It’s like a travelogue from someone who followed Jesus’ early ministry throughout Palestine before He spent so much time in Jerusalem. I believe (with the same caveat you gave) that the bulk of it is an eyewitness account written by one of the first disciples or possibly one of the Apostles. Those kinds of letters would be necessarily short and not contain whole long speeches.

Thanks. Did not know that.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from.
The so called professors of literary architecture devised this scenario from so-called ‘internal evidence’, but they forgot the external evidence, and the implied evidence.
Actually, we have two gospels, not four. They are Matthew and John. The other two are collections. Mark is a collection of the reminincences of Peter, taken towards the end of his life, the other is a collection of proto-gospels and traditions collected by Luke, to be used on Paul’s mission to the nations. Luke and Acts together form a single two part document.

There had been a serious split in the church, and the original teachings of Our Lord had been to some extent, varied by Paul, and these documents were produced to correct these variances.
Evidence: All the Gospel documents were published AFTER Paul’s epistles.
Corrections come after errors, not vice versa.
Which is the earliest Gospel,? Well both John and Matthew contain contemporay accounts, but then both Matthew and John were educated and literate.
Matthew was a tax collector, (and also an accountant, and by implication, a census keeper.) In his work he needed to be able to take contemporaneous notes, and thus he had skill in a form of ‘short-hand’. This is why his accounts are so full of vivid description. As he was writing, he still had his note before him. He even recalls from his notes exactly how he was called!
John was also educated, but this time, in the tradition of the Temple of Jerusalem. He then understood the traditions of the law, and the esoteric mysteries.
Peter was an illiterate fisherman. He was the man for the heavy work. He did transport and logistics. Like a taxi driver, he heard many things, and was a trusted friend, but his understanding of the big picture was limited.
Neither mark, nor Luke were apostles. Their contemporaneous reports are hear-say, though that does not make them false.
Though Matthew’s Gospel was finished late, it was composed using notes taken during the mission of Our Lord, so much of its content is then contemporaneous, and that is why it is so vividly alive.
That is why Tatian chose Matthew’s Gospel to be the main thread of his work.
John’s Gospel, though far more esoteric, still contains much contemporaneous witness, he was, after all, present on the mission, and, being literate, would have taken notes. He also, by some tradition, became the guardian of Our Lady, and probably also the Magdalen. He recounts vividly their recollections. John’s Gospel then is the other strand of Tatian’s work. The other two Gospels are only used in a very fragmentary manner, as and when they fit in.
The external evidence of this is that that both Matthew and John can be reconstructed from Tatian’s work to a degree of completeness about 85%, whereas the other two, together are so fragmentary, that little continuous witness can be found, apart from Luke’s opening and Nativity.
So, here you have a different picture.
Not quite the traditional picture, but quite contrary to the picture generated by the ‘cogniscenti’.
The actual facts are lost in the mists of time.
You have to choose which witness to trust, and by how much.

This analysis I find borign like archeology. But I love hearing archelogists talk because they have done the dirty work for me. And what hey tell opens my eyes for the beauty of the past.

So is Gospel analysis. I am grateful to the people who explain the fine details to me for I have no patience.

I trust everything and everyone of the Gospel Writers. What they meant is one thing. What what they say means to me in today’s world is another thing. For the Spirite did not die with the last Apostles.

He is still blowing today like the wind that comes from nowhere and goes God knows where to.

 

[thistle]

Today I was reading my Bible and I noticed that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer are not in the gospels of Mark and John.

This bothers me. I believe that Mark was written by a companion of Peter, and John was written by John. Wouldn’t Mark and John know about these very important teachings? Why would these most-quoted teachings of Jesus be absent from two of the gospels?

I am inclined to think that the prayer and the sermon are distillations of many teachings of Jesus, and that different authors distilled them differently. Still, this issue really bothers me. Do any of you have any thoughts as to why the prayer and the sermon would be absent from John and Mark?

At least part of The Lord’s Prayer is in the Gospel of Mark.

Mark 11:25 “And when you shall stand to pray, forgive, if you have any thing against any man, that your Father also, who is in heaven, may forgive you your sins.”

 

[azerty]

Catholics really need to stop paying attention to modern exegesis and should read the church fathers instead. The conclusions of modern exegesis not absolute.
There are now historians to say that the Gospel of John is the most reliable one. 100-50 years ago some historians were saying this was a greek product.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[Rich494]

Today I was reading my Bible and I noticed that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer are not in the gospels of Mark and John.

This bothers me. I believe that Mark was written by a companion of Peter, and John was written by John. Wouldn’t Mark and John know about these very important teachings? Why would these most-quoted teachings of Jesus be absent from two of the gospels?

I am inclined to think that the prayer and the sermon are distillations of many teachings of Jesus, and that different authors distilled them differently. Still, this issue really bothers me. Do any of you have any thoughts as to why the prayer and the sermon would be absent from John and Mark?

 

[Rich494]

Please keep in mind that our Bible was written by men as the Holy Spirit moved them. Not everthing that Jesus said or did is in them. Nor are they in like order. But for me the one thing I keep in mind is this, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” If you are born again you have the Holy Spirit in you. Set some time to be alone with Him and let him teach you, it has worked wonders for me.

 

[irishcolleen45]

I have wondered why the Transfiguration was not in John’s Gospel. I would think it would have been like Revelation to John.

 

[gkrohm]

Sounds very reasonable.

The large majority of scripture scholars would be in agreement that Mark wrote first and that Luke and Matt used both Mark, a source called Q. Luke and Matt also inserted their own unique traditions/sources.

The authorship of John is complex and controverted. Most say it was the last gospel to be completed. Others, including the current pope, have reason to believe that it may have the earliest and most authentic Palestine roots. Most agree that it went through several edits, presumably by students and followers of John. Few think it relies on Matt and Luke for any content. It seems to be most independent in its sources.

 

[patrick457]

The large majority of scripture scholars would be in agreement that Mark wrote first and that Luke and Matt used both Mark, a source called Q. Luke and Matt also inserted their own unique traditions/sources.

The assumption that a Logienquelle ‘Logia-source’ aka Q exists is mainly based on the idea that Matthew could not have known Luke and vice versa. Q according to the Two-Source Hypothesis is the source for the so-called double tradition (material absent from Mark that Matthew and Luke shares).

Now if one allows for the possibility that Matt and Luke were aware of each other’s works, the need for Q vanishes.

 

[thistle]

The large majority of scripture scholars would be in agreement that Mark wrote first and that Luke and Matt used both Mark, a source called Q. Luke and Matt also inserted their own unique traditions/sources.

The authorship of John is complex and controverted. Most say it was the last gospel to be completed. Others, including the current pope, have reason to believe that it may have the earliest and most authentic Palestine roots. Most agree that it went through several edits, presumably by students and followers of John. Few think it relies on Matt and Luke for any content. It seems to be most independent in its sources.

“Q” is a myth. Pure unfounded speculation plucked out of the air. There is ZERO evidence to support any claim about Q.

 

[Norminha]

Not all of the same events are present in all of the gospels. Simple.

Also, each author is unique, with his own way of thinking, as God created them.

There is somewhere over the internet a post regarding this same topic, where the author states this is simply a contradiction of the Gospels.

Of course, this is absolutely false, for God, who does not deceive nor cannot be deceived, cannot contradict Himself either. We, Catholics accept all Christ left for us in His Church, use the Catechism, as the manual of instruction when reading the Word of God, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us in our journey.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“Q” is a myth. Pure unfounded speculation plucked out of the air. There is ZERO evidence to support any claim about Q.

No. Not proven.

What is probable though is that Q is proto Matthew.
We know he was literate.
He gives accounts that are alive.
Yet we know his Gospel was amongst the last written.
This is highly suggestive that he had contemporaneous notes to work from.
“Q”.