Historical questions

[mystagogia87]

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?

 

[YoungTradCath]

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

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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?

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.

 

[Dorothy]

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.

Sounds very reasonable.

 

[mystagogia87]

Thanks for the replies.

I am now thinking that Jesus may never have delivered the beatitudes or the Lord’s prayer.

I’m thinking that these are just summaries by the gospel authors of his message. It is a conclusion I’m uncomfortable with and I’m hoping somebody will talk me out of it, but currently that’s what I suspect.

 

[ardis3958]

Thanks for the replies.

I am now thinking that Jesus may never have delivered the beatitudes or the Lord’s prayer.

I’m thinking that these are just summaries by the gospel authors of his message. It is a conclusion I’m uncomfortable with and I’m hoping somebody will talk me out of it, but currently that’s what I suspect.

Slow down. That’s not necessarily the case. Think about it this way:

• Let’s say you were a graduate student in Physics at Princeton University in the 1930s, and your PhD adviser was some professor in the Physics department by the name of Albert Einstein.
• Let’s say you work for three years on your PhD and during that time you take a lot of classes from him plus spend a lot of time talking with him & his/your colleagues about all sorts of things from physics to the Olympics to, I don’t know, strudel recipes.
• After you graduate, you become a professor yourself and you have physics students of your own.
• The students in your own classes all want to know what The Great Albert Einstein taught about physics.

Question 1: Are you going to reproduce every lecture of his verbatim like a transcript and just read his published papers out loud to the class, or are you going to rework the material you picked up as his student and colleague leaving some things out and rearranging other things so that they make more sense?

Question 2: You were not his only student. Other former students of his are already working on codifying Prof. Einstein’s teaching legacy at Princeton. Are they all going to come up with exactly the same finished product as you?

Question 3: A social friend of yours at a barbecue asks you what Einstein was like as a person and what it was like to work with him. Would you repeat everything that is found in all the standard biographies or would you deliberately leave out what everybody has already read about the man and talk about the stuff that so far only you and the other people who worked with him would know?

Question 1 explains why the Gospels mostly agree. Question 2 explains why the Gospels partially disagree. Question 3 explains why **John is so much different **from the others.

Finally, Question 4: What if you’re back on campus Monday teaching a course in General Relativity and one of your students raises his hand and says he’s uncomfortable with what you’re saying because it’s just a summary of Dr Einstein’s teachings but not what he actually said. How would you respond?

 

[Dorothy]

Thanks for the replies.

I am now thinking that Jesus may never have delivered the beatitudes or the Lord’s prayer.

I’m thinking that these are just summaries by the gospel authors of his message. It is a conclusion I’m uncomfortable with and I’m hoping somebody will talk me out of it, but currently that’s what I suspect.

Well, if that happens to be the case, ( and I don’t know if it is or not) I am not uncomfortable with it. Be at peace! Remember that the writers of the Sacred Scriptures were inspired. In my imagination I am thinking that I need to be listening to Our Lord whether He is on the mountain, or the plain. (that is where He is described to be in two different instances in some of the Gospels.) And, there most likely is deep meaning in the two different places describing where Jesus speaks from.

 

[Dorothy]

Slow down. That’s not necessarily the case. Think about it this way:

• Let’s say you were a graduate student in Physics at Princeton University in the 1930s, and your PhD adviser was some professor in the Physics department by the name of Albert Einstein.
• Let’s say you work for three years on your PhD and during that time you take a lot of classes from him plus spend a lot of time talking with him & his/your colleagues about all sorts of things from physics to the Olympics to, I don’t know, strudel recipes.
• After you graduate, you become a professor yourself and you have physics students of your own.
• The students in your own classes all want to know what The Great Albert Einstein taught about physics.

Question 1: Are you going to reproduce every lecture of his verbatim like a transcript and just read his published papers out loud to the class, or are you going to rework the material you picked up as his student and colleague leaving some things out and rearranging other things so that they make more sense?

Question 2: You were not his only student. Other former students of his are already working on codifying Prof. Einstein’s teaching legacy at Princeton. Are they all going to come up with exactly the same finished product as you?

Question 3: A social friend of yours at a barbecue asks you what Einstein was like as a person and what it was like to work with him. Would you repeat everything that is found in all the standard biographies or would you deliberately leave out what everybody has already read about the man and talk about the stuff that so far only you and the other people who worked with him would know?

Question 1 explains why the Gospels mostly agree. Question 2 explains why the Gospels partially disagree. Question 3 explains why **John is so much different **from the others.

Finally, Question 4: What if you’re back on campus Monday teaching a course in General Relativity and one of your students raises his hand and says he’s uncomfortable with what you’re saying because it’s just a summary of Dr Einstein’s teachings but not what he actually said. How would you respond?

I have never heard it explained so clearly that I can understand! Thanks!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

 

[thistle]

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.

I’m glad you said you were inventing.

 

[Heuchler]

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?

Each of these were written for different communities of people where certain aspects of Christ’s message needed to be emphasized. Christ went around for 3 years teaching and these men needed to write what they saw as edifying for their target audience on paper which was probably very costly meaning they probably had a limited amount of room to write this in. So, a lot of Christ’s specific teachings would be left out or summarized since He was out preaching for 3 years. So the Bible isn’t the transcript of Christ’s ministry but the highlights and needed parts. Some apostles saw the beatitudes and Lord’s prayer as needed while others saw other parts as more important.

(Edit: I’m sorry, I just went through and saw that Ardis covered essentially all that I said. So, sorry about that)

 

[patrick457]

Christ went around for 3 years teaching and these men needed to write what they saw as edifying for their target audience on paper which was probably very costly meaning they probably had a limited amount of room to write this in. So, a lot of Christ’s specific teachings would be left out or summarized since He was out preaching for 3 years. So the Bible isn’t the transcript of Christ’s ministry but the highlights and needed parts. Some apostles saw the beatitudes and Lord’s prayer as needed while others saw other parts as more important.

Not exactly. The exact length of Jesus’ ministry is unclear from the Gospels: the Synoptics for instance mention only the last Passover in Jesus’ life. This, combined with what some see as chronological clues in Mark’s Gospel, has led some people to believe that Mark, and the Synoptics in general, portray Jesus as being in public for more or less only a single year, which they think is consistent with other prophetic figures of the period who had very short careers (before the authorities cracked down on their movements), as well as being more practical, considering Jesus’ and the disciples’ lack of formal occupations. This view, however, has two major flaws: it assumes that Mark’s sequence is chronologically correct, and not Matthew’s and Luke’s, and a literalistic reading which supposes that only the events written in Mark actually occurred. The three Gospels are known to often arrange their (episodic) material differently. Hence, to use, say, the time indicators in Mark one would have to assume that the events happened in the exact order as they appear in that Gospel. Which puts you in a dilemma if you look at Matthew and Luke: which Evangelist then represents the correct sequence? And is it not equally possible that Mark was the one who changed things instead of Matthew or Luke?

John, meanwhile, mentions three Passovers within his Gospel and a few festivals in between. In his narrative, Jesus begins His ministry apparently shortly before the first Passover and then undergoes His Passion and Resurrection in the third. A literal reading of John would infer that Jesus was in public for more or less two years, at the least (considering that John himself admits that “there are many other things that Jesus said and did”, more than he could write, it could be possible that he skipped some periods of time or something).

BEGINNING OF MINISTRY

(Unspecified period of time)
Late March-late April (Spring): First Passover (2:13)
??: Unnamed feast (5:1)

ONE YEAR HAS ELAPSED

Late March-late April (Spring): Second Passover (6:4)
Late September-late October (Autumn): Booths (7:1ff.)
Late November-late December (Winter): Dedication (10:22ff.)

TWO YEARS HAVE ELAPSED

Late March-late April (Spring): Third Passover (11:55ff.)​

There is, as you would mention in the impromptu chart above, a feast simply introduced by John as “a feast of the Judaeans”. Much speculation has arisen over its identity: some have suggested Passover - which would make the total of Passovers in John into four, hence supporting the idea of a three-year ministry - others Shavuot, aka Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, still others Purim, etc.

The idea of Jesus preaching for three (or to be more exact, three-and-a-half years) started and became popular with Origen and Eusebius, both of whom linked Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (9:24-27), more specifically the final half-week, to Jesus. “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.” Because the two reasoned that Jesus must be the fulfillment of this prophecy (as always), then it follows that His ministry must have lasted for that duration.

Therefore it is written, ‘and in the midst of the week shall be taken away sacrifice and libation’; (Daniel 9:27) and it is clear that with the Passion was forcibly taken from them sacrifice and libation, when according to the Evangelical Scripture ‘the veil of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottom’ (Matthew 27:41).

• Eusebius, Prophetic Eclogues 3.46

 

[patrick457]

Each of these were written for different communities of people where certain aspects of Christ’s message needed to be emphasized.

Yep, it was, and is, common to think that each of the Gospels had a pre-existing specific audience, that the Evangelists were writing for their own local communities (why not say ‘churches’? ), addressing local issues and needs. However, Richard Bauckham has recently (and persuasively, at least for me) argued that far from having specific groups in mind, the Evangelists actually intended to write for an ‘open’ audience, for the whole Church at large.

 

[Big_Dummy]

What was included in each gospel relates to the readers it was addressed to. Matthew was written to Jewish people, so the sermon on the mount which deals with the relations of the Laws in the Torah to the new or fullfilled Kingdom of God(a main theme of Matthew), Jewish people could relate to. Basically, you are looking a a spin of Jesus’ life on earth addressed to specific groups of people in each gospel… Like John was written to born of God Christians.

 

[Heuchler]

Not exactly. The exact length of Jesus’ ministry is unclear from the Gospels: the Synoptics for instance mention only the last Passover in Jesus’ life. This, combined with what some see as chronological clues in Mark’s Gospel, has led some people to believe that Mark, and the Synoptics in general, portray Jesus as being in public for more or less only a single year, which they think is consistent with other prophetic figures of the period who had very short careers (before the authorities cracked down on their movements), as well as being more practical, considering Jesus’ and the disciples’ lack of formal occupations. This view, however, has two major flaws: it assumes that Mark’s sequence is chronologically correct, and not Matthew’s and Luke’s, and a literalistic reading which supposes that only the events written in Mark actually occurred. The three Gospels are known to often arrange their (episodic) material differently. Hence, to use, say, the time indicators in Mark one would have to assume that the events happened in the exact order as they appear in that Gospel. Which puts you in a dilemma if you look at Matthew and Luke: which Evangelist then represents the correct sequence? And is it not equally possible that Mark was the one who changed things instead of Matthew or Luke?

John, meanwhile, mentions three Passovers within his Gospel and a few festivals in between. In his narrative, Jesus begins His ministry apparently shortly before the first Passover and then undergoes His Passion and Resurrection in the third. A literal reading of John would infer that Jesus was in public for more or less two years, at the least (considering that John himself admits that “there are many other things that Jesus said and did”, more than he could write, it could be possible that he skipped some periods of time or something).

BEGINNING OF MINISTRY

(Unspecified period of time)
Late March-late April (Spring): First Passover (2:13)
??: Unnamed feast (5:1)

ONE YEAR HAS ELAPSED

Late March-late April (Spring): Second Passover (6:4)
Late September-late October (Autumn): Booths (7:1ff.)
Late November-late December (Winter): Dedication (10:22ff.)

TWO YEARS HAVE ELAPSED

Late March-late April (Spring): Third Passover (11:55ff.)​

There is, as you would mention in the impromptu chart above, a feast simply introduced by John as “a feast of the Judaeans”. Much speculation has arisen over its identity: some have suggested Passover - which would make the total of Passovers in John into four, hence supporting the idea of a three-year ministry - others Shavuot, aka Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, still others Purim, etc.

The idea of Jesus preaching for three (or to be more exact, three-and-a-half years) started and became popular with Origen and Eusebius, both of whom linked Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (9:24-27), more specifically the final half-week, to Jesus. “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.” Because the two reasoned that Jesus must be the fulfillment of this prophecy (as always), then it follows that His ministry must have lasted for that duration.

Therefore it is written, ‘and in the midst of the week shall be taken away sacrifice and libation’; (Daniel 9:27) and it is clear that with the Passion was forcibly taken from them sacrifice and libation, when according to the Evangelical Scripture ‘the veil of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottom’ (Matthew 27:41).

• Eusebius, Prophetic Eclogues 3.46

Well either way it is hard to write down all Christ said within a whole year.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yep, it was, and is, common to think that each of the Gospels had a pre-existing specific audience, that the Evangelists were writing for their own local communities (why not say ‘churches’? ), addressing local issues and needs. However, Richard Bauckham has recently (and persuasively, at least for me) argued that far from having specific groups in mind, the Evangelists actually intended to write for an ‘open’ audience, for the whole Church at large.

While there is assuredly room for discussion and debate on the details, the horizon within which the Catholic Church operates regarding the historical truth and composition of the Gospels is set down by Dei verbum (esp. #19) which refers to the 1964 document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, “On The Historical Truth of the Gospels” which can be found in English and in [%20-%20ocr.pdf “]Latin](” http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS 56 [1964) pp. 712-18.

These spell out the three stages of the Gospel tradition including its being shaped by the concerns and nature of the community in which it was handed on orally and the Evangelists’ taking into consideration the situation of their churches in the process of composition.

Certainly in view of the fact that all local churches are a concrete expression of the universal church, each evangelist would compose within a preexisting universal horizon and the gospel they wrote would have universal application.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

From the end of the gospel of John

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ 27Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.’ 28Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ 29Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’
**
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31But these are written so that you may come to believe* that Jesus is the Messiah,* the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.**

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

From the end of the gospel of John

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ 27Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.’ 28Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ 29Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’
**
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31But these are written so that you may come to believe* that Jesus is the Messiah,* the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.**

I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this, but it would be one example showing that the evangelists made selections from all that Jesus said and did in the composition of their Gospels.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m glad you said you were inventing.

I took it as a typical British Irony, but this one was caustic.
May I ask, Sir, with dully respect, which was your point that me, and inventor, could not catch?
I tried to find Your Honor’s constructive contribution to the Thread (that must be somewhere for I do not imagine that you would not contribute) but I could not find.
If you, sir, would kindly give me the way to your contribution, I would be glad to read it.
Thanks, from an ignorant inventor…

 

[guestseeking]

Thanks for the replies.

I am now thinking that Jesus may never have delivered the beatitudes or the Lord’s prayer.

I’m thinking that these are just summaries by the gospel authors of his message. It is a conclusion I’m uncomfortable with and I’m hoping somebody will talk me out of it, but currently that’s what I suspect.

are you kidding me? your gonna have an attitude about the prayer and the gospels just because different people wrote down different things here and there? i’m thinking that i am trying to talk you out of it. perhaps this insecurity you are facing with your faith in the scriptures is showing me something perhaps it is not showing you, perhaps you need to go to your church, go to the present father their and ask about theology classes open to laypersons for people searching for a more detailed understanding about the way the bible was written and why. if the insecurity in your faith in the scriptures tells me that is wrong for you to doubt it, then perhaps you have a need to replace that insecurity with something better to fulfill the need, there is nothing better than faith, but if your faith and your personality are not in aggreement, then perhaps your personality requires attention on the details, suppervised by a person of the church with the authority to teach, so that you dont go further where this insecurity can take you. but first look at it this way, some sins we do need to be taken away but replaced with something that will build our faith so that there is no hole so to speak in lives, its not a catholic or not catholic issue, i dont have a church i can tell you since i havent joined all detail oriented people in catholic and non catholic churches seem to have needs in thier personality that can affect thier faith if they dont take the bad out and put the good in. so if you really want to be able to stand on the scriptures you are not having a easy time standing on, then take some classes in the doctrines of the church and learn why these books were written these ways. because faith keeps me from asking that question you did, and the answer did not shake me, but that doesnt mean i have the same needs as you, so find out where the catholic church has classes for you to take that will teach these bible facts and help you to renue your faith in the scriptures. because it is hard for people with alot of intelligence to get past certain details doesnt mean the answer isnt there, it may just be a signal that you need to ask for more time to learn these things with people to teach them who are intellectual as well as faithful and who also have authority. God be with you and his Peace that passes all understanding be yours, dont let this one mess up keep you from higher ground. where you find repentance is needed do so. but where after repentance it reveals a calling for more time in the word with someone who can teach more than people like i ask for, go for it!!! i got my own questions to ask and i am not very easy going always and i get emotional, but i am not as interested in the same stuff you ask about, so i think i gave you the best turn arround and look question i could give. i called it as i saw it, i hope you are not discouraged i hope you are excited and full of hope!! God bless you!