Which of these did Jesus say?...and historical accuracy of quotes in the Gospels

[hellopeople]

Matthew 5:3 and 5:6

3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

OR
Luke 6:20-21

"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.

I find this extremely interesting. Matthew and Luke both use the words poor and hunger, but they end up having completely different meanings. Luke, reading it objectively, seems to be talking about people that are economically poor as well as literally hungry. Matthew uses both hunger and poor, like Luke, but changes the meaning totally when he says “poor in spirit” and people that “hunger and thirst for righteousness.”

Now the fact that these are so similar, even using the same words, makes me believe that it is based on the same event. But, the meanings are completely different.

So, what do you think? Do you think that these are different things that Jesus said at different times? Do you think that Jesus said one of these and the other is wrong?

In my opinion, the one from Luke seems to make the most sense, because he is using poor and hungry literally. It seems as though Matthew added “in spirit” and “for righteousness” to change the meaning. Why did he do this?

Now, this brings me to my problem with the accuracy of the Gospels. If Matthew added things to a quote to change the meaning, did all the gospel writers do this? Did they each have a pre conceived idea of what Jesus was or who he was and then wrote their respective gospels to reflect these? Each gospel seems to have different themes…so which is historically accurate?

 

[Fidelis]

I believe that Jesus said both of these sayings at different times, with the saying in Luke’s Gospel being a shortened version of how he said it in in the sermon referenced in Matthew.

To say “blessed are you poor” does not restrict the meaning to economic poverty. In fact, I don’t believe that is it’s primary meaning, since there is no special or inherent religious merit (i.e. “blessedness”) simply by virtue of being in poverty. Just as you will find holy rich people, you’ll find wicked poor folk. The deciding factor is one attitude of heart, characterized here by “poverty of spirit.”

 

[KyivAndrew]

I find this extremely interesting. Matthew and Luke both use the words poor and hunger, but they end up having completely different meanings. Luke, reading it objectively, seems to be talking about people that are economically poor as well as literally hungry. Matthew uses both hunger and poor, like Luke, but changes the meaning totally when he says “poor in spirit” and people that “hunger and thirst for righteousness.”

Now the fact that these are so similar, even using the same words, makes me believe that it is based on the same event. But, the meanings are completely different.

So, what do you think? Do you think that these are different things that Jesus said at different times? Do you think that Jesus said one of these and the other is wrong?

In my opinion, the one from Luke seems to make the most sense, because he is using poor and hungry literally. It seems as though Matthew added “in spirit” and “for righteousness” to change the meaning. Why did he do this?

No same event. It’s sometimes good to remember the prosaic things that might not cross your mind. Each Evangelist had a different grasp of Greek, the language of the N.T., Mark’s greek being pretty straight and apparently being the weakest. The distincitive knowledge of Greek possessed by each Evangelist and their background account for some of the small differences you may note; that, and the community they are preaching to explains some of the differences in the emphases - to which area, and/or to Jewish Christians, or to Gentiles were they writing.

God Bless.

 

[hellopeople]

No same event. It’s sometimes good to remember the prosaic things that might not cross your mind. Each Evangelist had a different grasp of Greek, the language of the N.T., Mark’s greek being pretty straight and apparently being the weakest. The distincitive knowledge of Greek possessed by each Evangelist and their background account for some of the small differences you may note; that, and the community they are preaching to explains some of the differences in the emphases - to which area, and/or to Jewish Christians, or to Gentiles were they writing.

God Bless.

Don’t these differences bother anyone else? It really got me thinking. They used the same words, but the meaning was completely different. It makes me ask what other liberties the gospel writers might have taken to get their point across. How often did they put their own individual agendas ahead of historical accuracy? In my opinion, there is no doubt that they did this.

 

[Fidelis]

Don’t these differences bother anyone else? It really got me thinking. They used the same words, but the meaning was completely different. It makes me ask what other liberties the gospel writers might have taken to get their point across. How often did they put their own individual agendas ahead of historical accuracy? In my opinion, there is no doubt that they did this.

For one thing, the Gospels are a very particular type of literary genre distinct from what we these days would call history in the strict sense. There’s no use comparing apples and oranges on this point, and in any case it is always unproductive to cast judgment or speculate on the internal motives of anyone, including the Gospel writers. The writings must simply be taken at face value as they are unless one has irrefutable evidence of bad intent. Our opinions based on our feelings about something are not irrefutable proof.

As I pointed out above, it is possible to interpret these passages as two different ways of saying the same thing. To ignore and not address that possibilty is not dealing with all the facts. If you are looking for truth, you need to look at ALL the options.

 

[hellopeople]

For one thing, the Gospels are a very particular type of literary genre distinct from what we these days would call history in the strict sense. There’s no use comparing apples and oranges on this point, and in any case it is always unproductive to cast judgment or speculate on the internal motives of anyone, including the Gospel writers. The writings must simply be taken at face value as they are unless one has irrefutable evidence of bad intent. Our opinions based on our feelings about something are not irrefutable proof.

As I pointed out above, it is possible to interpret these passages as two different ways of saying the same thing. To ignore and not address that possibilty is not dealing with all the facts. If you are looking for truth, you need to look at ALL the options.

I did address that possibility, but it seems extremely far fetched considering the overlap of material between the two gospels. It is far more likely that they are from the same source, one (or even both) are just altered. I don’t think that the Gospel writers had bad intentions, but it seems like they each wanted to paint a specific picture of Jesus and maybe took some liberty with the facts to do so.

 

[Major_Tom]

In my opinion, the one from Luke seems to make the most sense, because he is using poor and hungry literally. It seems as though Matthew added “in spirit” and “for righteousness” to change the meaning. Why did he do this?

I have a book called The Five Gospels (author:Robert Funk and a collection of Bible scholars) who wrote of these passages: “Jesus almost certainly formulated the first three congratulations in their Lukan version- those addressed to the poor, the hungry, the weeping. Congratulating the poor without qualification is unexpected, to say the least…”

And regarding the balance of “Blessed are theys…” that are listed after these (blessed are the meek, the merciful, etc.), they suggest that Matthew added them, as they are typical sayings, and don’t contain the spirit of surprise that is present in the sayings of Jesus.

Now, this brings me to my problem with the accuracy of the Gospels. If Matthew added things to a quote to change the meaning, did all the gospel writers do this? Did they each have a pre conceived idea of what Jesus was or who he was and then wrote their respective gospels to reflect these?

I would say, certainly yes. The trick is determining to what degree they did this. What do you say ?

 

[Fidelis]

I did address that possibility, but it seems extremely far fetched considering the overlap of material between the two gospels.

Except from a purely textual criticism standpoint, how does an “overlap of material” necessarily rule out that these were from two different sermons delivered by Jesus at two different times saying basically the same thing but in slightly different words with a different immediate audience in mind?

It is far more likely that they are from the same source, one (or even both) are just altered

On what basis is this more likely?

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

They are obviously two different sermons. Let’s take a look. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount vs. Luke’s Sermon on the Plain.

The one takes place on a mount; the other takes place on a plain.

The one contains a number of teachings that say certain things; the other contains fewer and slightly different teachings.

The one takes place before the call of Matthew/Levi and the choosing of the Twelve; the other takes place after these events.

It seems fairly clear cut to me.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[hellopeople]

Except from a purely textual criticism standpoint, how does an “overlap of material” necessarily rule out that these were from two different sermons delivered by Jesus at two different times saying basically the same thing but in slightly different words with a different immediate audience in mind?

On what basis is this more likely?

Well first of all the possible presumption of Q. It seems that both Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source dubbed Q. Or, it is also possible that Matthew or Luke used the other one. But the coincidence of Jesus saying almost the exact same thing, with about the same words, but with completely different meanings seems far fetched…doesn’t it?

 

[hellopeople]

They are obviously two different sermons. Let’s take a look. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount vs. Luke’s Sermon on the Plain.

The one takes place on a mount; the other takes place on a plain.

The one contains a number of teachings that say certain things; the other contains fewer and slightly different teachings.

The one takes place before the call of Matthew/Levi and the choosing of the Twelve; the other takes place after these events.

It seems fairly clear cut to me.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I don’t think it is clear cut at all. It seems that in Luke, Jesus pretty much says everything that he says in the sermon on the mount, but it is spread out throughout the gospel. Basically, back then, the place that Jesus said something or when he said did not matter too much to authors. The content is what matters.

 

[Fidelis]

Well first of all the possible presumption of Q. It seems that both Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source dubbed Q. Or, it is also possible that Matthew or Luke used the other one.

The so-called ‘Q’ theory is by no means established, and is in fact quickly beginning to fall out of favor with Scripture scholars as highly artificial and non-tenable.

But the coincidence of Jesus saying almost the exact same thing, with about the same words, but with completely different meanings seems far fetched…doesn’t it?

As I said, I don’t think they do have completely meanings – they are two different ways of saying the same thing.

Do you do any teaching? When I teach the same lesson over and over again, I rarely use the exact same words to teach the same thing. It depends on the specific focus of the class, my audience, how much time limitations I have – any number of things. In the course of his three-year preaching ministry, doesn’t it make sense that he would preach the same message many times over to different audiences-- and as a good teacher, gear it to his particular audience at the time?

 

[NHInsider]

The so-called ‘Q’ theory is by no means established, and is in fact quickly beginning to fall out of favor with Scripture scholars as highly artificial and non-tenable.

As I said, I don’t think they do have completely meanings – they are two different ways of saying the same thing.

Do you do any teaching? When I teach the same lesson over and over again, I rarely use the exact same words to teach the same thing. It depends on the specific focus of the class, my audience, how much time limitations I have – any number of things. In the course of his three-year preaching ministry, doesn’t it make sense that he would preach the same message many times over to different audiences-- and as a good teacher, gear it to his particular audience at the time?

This is perfectly true - public speakers and teachers do revisit the same material over and over.
OTOH, the “sermon on the plain/mount” could be the same event, depending on whether you’re describing it from the point of view of the people seated “on the plain” or the point of view of the speaker, seated on the rise above them so He could be seen and heard.
OTOH again, it is possible that the oral accounts emphasized different bits as they were passed along, and eventually written down (hasn’t anyone besides me had the experience of sitting around at a family dinner or class reunion and getting into an argument over the details of a specific event - because each attendee experiences it in a slightly–or markedly-- different way?)

What we know is that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has preserved both of these accounts, and so both have meaning and value (TRUTH) for us - and I think that speaks to the OP’s original query: both the literal and the spiritualized meanings are true.

 

[hellopeople]

The so-called ‘Q’ theory is by no means established, and is in fact quickly beginning to fall out of favor with Scripture scholars as highly artificial and non-tenable.

As I said, I don’t think they do have completely meanings – they are two different ways of saying the same thing.

Do you do any teaching? When I teach the same lesson over and over again, I rarely use the exact same words to teach the same thing. It depends on the specific focus of the class, my audience, how much time limitations I have – any number of things. In the course of his three-year preaching ministry, doesn’t it make sense that he would preach the same message many times over to different audiences-- and as a good teacher, gear it to his particular audience at the time?

You could make the argument that Jesus is gearing his teachings to different arguments, but it seems as though Luke’s Jesus is especially sympathetic to the poor and Matthew’s Jesus is especially following the Torah. They put different emphases on different aspects, which makes me think that they took liberties when it came to historical accuracy so that they could show the Jesus they wanted to show.

 

[hellopeople]

What we know is that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has preserved both of these accounts, and so both have meaning and value (TRUTH) for us - and I think that speaks to the OP’s original query: both the literal and the spiritualized meanings are true.

When you take out this assumption of guidance from the holy spirit, what do you have though?

As for the Q theory, it is highly debated, but seems to be the most accepted theory.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

You could make the argument that Jesus is gearing his teachings to different arguments, but it seems as though Luke’s Jesus is especially sympathetic to the poor and Matthew’s Jesus is especially following the Torah. They put different emphases on different aspects, which makes me think that they took liberties when it came to historical accuracy so that they could show the Jesus they wanted to show.

You seem to think that only one of these can be true. Why not both? Couldn’t Jesus be concerned both with the Torah and the poor? What’s more, the Torah stresses care for the poor in many places, so those aren’t at all contradictory, anyway.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[NHInsider]

When you take out this assumption of guidance from the holy spirit, what do you have though?

If I took out the assumption of guidance from the Holy Spirit, I probably wouldn’t be reading the books at all. How many other documents from the first century do you read on a regular basis?

As for the Q theory, it is highly debated, but seems to be the most accepted theory.

I got my degree in the age of Q theory ascendant, and accepted it as plausible, but I’m much less convinced now. The more I study the ways important stories are passed along in pre-literate cultures, the less I need to think that there was an underlying written source for the synoptics. And the more I study of the development of the body of material that became the New Testament (and the books that did not) the less likely it seems that Quelle could have so thoroughly disappeared from the record.

I’m also inherently suspicious of “experts” who think they can tell what’s authentic better from a remove of 2000 years than the experts who made the decisions within 300 years of the originals (and with access to a great deal of material that has since been destroyed, one might add).

 

[hellopeople]

If I took out the assumption of guidance from the Holy Spirit, I probably wouldn’t be reading the books at all. How many other documents from the first century do you read on a regular basis?

I got my degree in the age of Q theory ascendant, and accepted it as plausible, but I’m much less convinced now. The more I study the ways important stories are passed along in pre-literate cultures, the less I need to think that there was an underlying written source for the synoptics. And the more I study of the development of the body of material that became the New Testament (and the books that did not) the less likely it seems that Quelle could have so thoroughly disappeared from the record.

I’m also inherently suspicious of “experts” who think they can tell what’s authentic better from a remove of 2000 years than the experts who made the decisions within 300 years of the originals (and with access to a great deal of material that has since been destroyed, one might add).

So do you believe in Augustine’s proposal. If you don’t believe in Q, what is your theory? I think Q is far from fool proof, and to be honest think that something else is much more likely. I am not too sure what that is yet though. As for the Beatitudes at the beginning of this post, that seems to (in my mind) either point to both Matthew and Luke using Q, or Luke using Matthew (though I don’t think that is probable). Both of these could be untrue, but it is what seems most logical. But in other parts of the Bible, where Matthew and Luke add something extremely similar or exactly the same to a narrative from Mark, it makes you think how they could have changed it in the exact same way if one wasn’t copying from the other.

I think that the reason none of the theories are foolproof is because we don’t know what the original versions of the gospels look like. We just have copies of copies of copies, etc. that could be a bit different than what we have today. So, in places where Matthew and Luke are adding the same exact thing to the Mark narrative, maybe they each had a copy of Mark that added the same thing, but our earliest translations of Mark lack those additions.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

If Matthew and Luke have Jesus saying the same thing in the same way, I would
conclude that it’s because He actually said it. That seems to be the simplest answer.

That in no way means that Mark’s quotes from Jesus aren’t His own words as well. As we’ve said, it’s quite plausible that He taught similar lessons to people at different times.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[NHInsider]

If you don’t believe in Q, what is your theory? I think Q is far from fool proof, and to be honest think that something else is much more likely. I am not too sure what that is yet though. As for the Beatitudes at the beginning of this post, that seems to (in my mind) either point to both Matthew and Luke using Q, or Luke using Matthew (though I don’t think that is probable). Both of these could be untrue, but it is what seems most logical. But in other parts of the Bible, where Matthew and Luke add something extremely similar or exactly the same to a narrative from Mark, it makes you think how they could have changed it in the exact same way if one wasn’t copying from the other.

Unless they were all drawing on oral transmissions that were similar because they developed from a common source, and divergent because the different groups brought different experiences and understandings and issues to the retelling?

And yes, I do think it is likely that the writers of the later Gospels were aware of the earlier ones - why wouldn’t they be? Luke, after all, starts out by telling us that he’s reviewed all the material available. . .

I think that the reason none of the theories are foolproof is because we don’t know what the original versions of the gospels look like. We just have copies of copies of copies, etc. that could be a bit different than what we have today. So, in places where Matthew and Luke are adding the same exact thing to the Mark narrative, maybe they each had a copy of Mark that added the same thing, but our earliest translations of Mark lack those additions.

Well, yes and no. On the one hand, it is certainly true that we don’t have anything “original” in a material sense, and that it is very possible that some words and phrases that began as glosses wound up interwoven with the text (which does not in the least undermine their authority, if one accepts the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the whole process, not just the “original authors.” That’s why the possibility that the Evangelists had “agendas” that influenced their choices of words doesn’t bother me. I’m okay with the idea that if they did, they did so under the guidance of the Spirit.)

On the other hand, we know of the meticulous attention to detail that goes into the transcribing of the Torah, as it has for millenia, and I think we would have to assume that similar care would have been given to the transcription of anything attributed to the Apostles.