Sermon on the Mount - never happened

[Fidelis]

Having said that, knowing that the Sermon on the Mount might not have happened is not disastrous to one’s faith. Christianity, in case we’ve forgotten, is not a religion of the book nor is it a religion about the historicity of the Bible. What matters, in the case of the Sermon, is not its locale or its historicity because whether or not it happened changes little about the fundamental Christian faith: what matters is that Matthew managed to collect these statements of Jesus and organize them in a manner which has positively affected individuals for countless generations.

Aside from the fact that modern day day scholars really can draw no definitive conclusions based on textual criticism alone, I don’t think this is what matters at all.

Like it or not, for the average believer, what matters is that Jesus said these things, that he said them in this context and in this place. Otherwise, the chase is on for the “historical Jesus” who probably never said these things in the first place. It is shortly after this that the average believer tosses his Bible in the trash, or goes to join a fundamentalist church.

In the final analysis, who is this kind of speculative gruel helping anyway? More Catholics have been turned off to reading the Scriptures by this so-called “scholarly” approach than any other single reason.

 

[buffalo]

When Jesus came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. Matthew***Chapter 8

Seems He went up and came down.***

 

[buffalo]

And why did HE go up on the mountain?

To show the Jews His law was higher than theirs.

 

[davidgaither]

So many times we lose sight of the big picture with our scholarly studies. We are being told a remembered oral past. That is why we try to find other evidence to get a better insight but most of the time we are never going to know the exact answer. This is also true today even with our large data bases of data about an event. Can you read just one book on an historical event? No, because no matter how someone tries, they are prejudiced with what they think happened or are trying to make a point we may not be aware of. This is not good or bad. It is just the way things are. Therefore most people read several books by several authors and make there own decision of what they THINK happened. You still were not there and you can only rely on a human that makes mistakes to write the events that we hope they are correct. We also need to keep in mind who is the story being written to and what point are they trying to make to whom.
I think for the most part people read about an event and they are only looking for the big picture. I think this may have been the reason they kept all four of the books of the life of Jesus in the bible. To our case in point. Doesn’t the telling of this story fit with the big picture of what Jesus was trying to teach? Does it matter if it was half way up the mountain? I have loved a lot of the answers that make this point. I also understand that if I was an academic I may make a finer point but… We should never forget to not take one person’s view of anything, even our own. That is why we shoud always research a point before we act on it.
Sorry this got so windy…
Dave

 

[Irish_Saints]

This sounds very much like the tripe spewed out about 15 years ago by a group of elitists who named themselves “The Jesus Seminar” They also opined that Jesus never taught the “Lord’s Prayer” and offered many other faith-sapping opinions. Of course, being founded on lies and ego, they are pretty much a footnote now.

Christ’s peace.

“Dom” Crossan is my hero…NOT!!!

I’ve always found it almost funny (almost) that whenever the big networks want to “re-tread” Christianity, they trot out a cadre of the usual suspects. Crossan, McBride, et al. Never see them beating a path to the door of an orthodox Catholic.

 

[inthecloud]

I do not see the point for denying the Sermon of the Mountain.
The only legitimate doubt is that it might happened in a different mountain!
The revisionist attention ho’s at work.

 

[catharina]

I agree that were Jesus spoke the Beatitudes have no bearing on my faith but what is the point of questioning this in the first place? Its not as if it is unlikely that he could have climbed a mountain to speak to a crowd of people. I guess that I want to know what the reasoning for questioning this in the first place is?

I mean why don’t we question if Jesus wore sandals or was Jewish? That would be silly, especially as there seems no basis to question these things.

I guess that I am confused as to the ‘why’ behind this man’s assertions. Could someone explain to me the reasons behind not believing that Jesus taught on the mountain? Does he think Jesus couldn’t climb a mountain or that people wouldn’t have followed him up there?

I am being serious, I just don’t understand the reasonings behind the remarks that the op is quoted.

Deb, about your “objections?” I agree.

There are some Scripture scholars who would insist that a camel certainly can easily pass through the eye of a needle, etc…

As I said earlier, “What you heard today is an opinion - of a person. If you heard it in a homily at Mass, then still, as before, you heard an opinion held by a certain priest. It would be SO wonderful if all Catholics realized that they are perfectly free to categorize such unusual ideas in this way. If Rome hasn’t taught it, it hasn’t been taught.”

By that I mean that if the Church has not pronounced chapter and verse as “such and such” then many teachings might stand open to a variety of interpretations. That is, are we reading what’s literal or what’s poetic or what’s parable or what? These are the kind of questions that Scripture “scholars” toss around - and they’re serious! For me, a childlike faith will take me farther. However, I have studied Theology over the years and one of my favorite lines was delivered by two professors of Canon Law. In their opinion: “All Scripture scholars go insane.” I see the point!

Some priests or other teachers do seem to feel a need to raise the awareness of folks in the pew. Doing so within homilies on Sundays is not a sure way to success in increasing “awareness.” More often it causes only confusion and hurt.

 

[Refugium]

Deb, about your “objections?” I agree.

There are some Scripture scholars who would insist that a camel certainly can easily pass through the eye of a needle, etc…

As I said earlier, “What you heard today is an opinion - of a person. If you heard it in a homily at Mass, then still, as before, you heard an opinion held by a certain priest. It would be SO wonderful if all Catholics realized that they are perfectly free to categorize such unusual ideas in this way. If Rome hasn’t taught it, it hasn’t been taught.”

By that I mean that if the Church has not pronounced chapter and verse as “such and such” then many teachings might stand open to a variety of interpretations. That is, are we reading what’s literal or what’s poetic or what’s parable or what? These are the kind of questions that Scripture “scholars” toss around - and they’re serious! For me, a childlike faith will take me farther. However, I have studied Theology over the years and one of my favorite lines was delivered by two professors of Canon Law. In their opinion: “All Scripture scholars go insane.” I see the point!

Some priests or other teachers do seem to feel a need to raise the awareness of folks in the pew. Doing so within homilies on Sundays is not a sure way to success in increasing “awareness.” More often it causes only confusion and hurt.

Actually, Catharina, the Church has spoken and declared the whole of Scripture, especially the Gospels, to be historically reliable. For more information, read the Encyclicals “Providentissimus Deus”, “Spiritus Paraclitus”, and “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”

 

[catharina]

Actually, Catharina, the Church has spoken and declared the whole of Scripture, especially the Gospels, to be historically reliable. For more information, read the Encyclicals “Providentissimus Deus”, “Spiritus Paraclitus”, and “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”

Actually, I’m aware that the Church has declared all of Scripture to be historically reliable. Although (for example) different Evangelists reported in different ways, at times with different “facts” and emphases, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the Scripture is historically reliable, exactly as the Church has declared.

Thanks anyway though.

 

[Refugium]

Actually, I’m aware that the Church has declared all of Scripture to be historically reliable. Although (for example) different Evangelists reported in different ways, at times with different “facts” and emphases, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the Scripture is historically reliable, exactly as the Church has declared.

Thanks anyway though.

So in other words you’re saying you retract your previous statement that:

It would be SO wonderful if all Catholics realized that they are perfectly free to categorize such unusual ideas in this way. If Rome hasn’t taught it, it hasn’t been taught."

?

 

[catharina]

So in other words you’re saying you retract your previous statement that:
?

Nope. In fact, with your added comments, my statement stands even more clearly: “It would be SO wonderful if all Catholics realized that they are perfectly free to categorize such unusual ideas in this way. If Rome hasn’t taught it, it hasn’t been taught.”

IOW, I don’t believe that Catholics are free to interpret the Bible as individuals and then TEACH that personal view to others as anything more than a personal opinion. Clarity there?

 

[mercygate]

Since similar material appears in Luke as “The Sermon on the Plain” it is not unreasonable to think that some editing has enabled the Evangelists to craft their message to their diverse audiences without distorting or diluting it.

The point isn’t whether Jesus went “up” or “down” but WHAT DID HE SAY? WHAT DID HE MEAN?

I take the text AS text in the CON-text of the whole Gospel. These guys did not “do” history the way we do. They had a much more important objective in mind.

 

[Fidelis]

Since similar material appears in Luke as “The Sermon on the Plain” it is not unreasonable to think that some editing has enabled the Evangelists to craft their message to their diverse audiences without distorting or diluting it.

OR, it could have been a similar (but not identical) sermon delivered at a different time and place. There’s no reason to believe that Jesus didn’t repeat his sermons, using slightly different words for different audiences, etc, each time.

 

[mercygate]

OR, it could have been a similar (but not identical) sermon delivered at a different time and place. There’s no reason to believe that Jesus didn’t repeat his sermons, using slightly different words for different audiences, etc, each time.

Never thought of that but sure – why not?

 

[juliamajor]

Never thought of that but sure – why not?

That could be true but why would you have Fours Gospels instead of one if the text wasn’t geared to different audiences? Wouldn’t one be good enough?

 

[Ignatius]

I heard an explanation today of the Sermon on the Mount I’ve never heard before. Can anyone let me know if there is any validity to this interpretation:

This particular event probably never happened. The words in Matthew 5 explaining this event (“went up the mountain”) are symbolic for “something important”, not to be taken that Jesus literally went up a mountain/hillside to preach to his disciples. Jesus also more than likely never recited the Beatitudes as they appear in Matthew, but instead, Matthew took sayings of Jesus throughout his ministry and wove them into the story of the “Sermon on the Mount” as away to convey Jesus’ teachings.

Can you please let me know which parish you heard this at? I’d like to stay as far away as possible from it. I’d recommend you do the same. And out of Charity, get as many others as you can to move to a parish which has a priest that is faithfull to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[TMC]

I have heard many versions: that it was delivered exactly as written, that it is a compilation of several sermons, that it is one sermon given many times with slight variations, that Jesus really went up the mountain, that Jesus going up the mountain is a symbol, that going up the mountain is both real and a symbol… and so on.

None of that matters. Its almost silly. I believe that the Sermon on the Mount accurately reflects Jesus’ teachings. That is what the evagelists were inspired to record, and they did. Why would it matter where he said it? He probably gave this important sermon more than once, or maybe he did not. It was important enough to be recorded. It is what Jesus taught. The rest is unimportant.

 

[Fidelis]

That could be true but why would you have Four Gospels instead of one if the text wasn’t geared to different audiences? Wouldn’t one be good enough?

Perhaps because each Gospel as a whole was geared to different audiences (Luke to Gentiles, Matthew to Jews, etc). At the same time, however, some stories, sayings, and sermons by Jesus are found almost verbatim (except for narrative style) in more than one Gospel.

Matthew 17
2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli’jah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah.” 5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

Mark 9
2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them, 3 and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them Eli’jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus. 5 And Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah.” 6 For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid. 7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” 8 And suddenly looking around they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only

 

[Hiromu]

It is ludicrous that the “interpretation” (an awful one at that) was brought up in a homily during the most holy and precious mass. A homily is to teach the true tenets of the Catholic faith - not to throw crazy theory nuggets as to cloud what the Gospel is actually teaching.
.
I believe that Jesus did repeat this sermon several times throughout his ministry. And, historically, I believe Jesus taught all of the beautiful beatitudes as one sermon with continuity, as the Sacred Scripture states.

If we start believing this is symbolic, why not state that the rock Jesus was talking about building the church upon was really a symbolic rock…or that the Bread of Life discourse was several teachings put together into one story and that Jesus was speaking symbolically…

Please pray for our priests who are misinformed…

St. Michael, pray for us and protect us from the evil that attacks our beloved Church.

 

[buffalo]

Since similar material appears in Luke as “The Sermon on the Plain” it is not unreasonable to think that some editing has enabled the Evangelists to craft their message to their diverse audiences without distorting or diluting it.

The point isn’t whether Jesus went “up” or “down” but WHAT DID HE SAY? WHAT DID HE MEAN?

I take the text AS text in the CON-text of the whole Gospel. These guys did not “do” history the way we do. They had a much more important objective in mind.

The possibility is the mountain had a plateau.

Mount of Beatitudes