The myth of the Sermon on the Mount

[Michael BG]

I have been reading some of the reviews written by James F McGrath, which got me thinking about what conclusions can be drawn from the theology of a gospel writer. I believe that Matthew saw Jesus as a second Moses and therefore created the Sermon of the Mount to reflect this. (It is likely Matthew was not alone in thinking of Jesus as a second Moses.)

However just because I reject the historicity of the Sermon on the Mount do I have to reject everything Matthew states that Jesus said on the mount? Or should each pericope be studied to discover its development and only when the most likely oldest version has been identified should its historicity be determined?

[toejam]

I tend to look at these things this way (influenced by the approach of Dale Allison): When one zooms in and asks "Did this event actually happen?", the answer is probably "No!". But is it the kind of thing Jesus was known for (i.e. delivering seemingly important diatribes to the masses about the coming Kingdom of God)?, then yeah, probably. I think the early gospel sources reflect the kind of thing Jesus was known for teaching - not the actual specific words and deeds. I think the historical Jesus was preaching an apocalyptic message - "You better get right with Yahweh or else! Don't be corrupt! The Son of Man is coming soon! He'll destroy all you sinners unless you repent!". Beyond that, specifics are hard to nail down. Like many cult leaders, it wouldn't surprise me if Jesus' views were themselves somewhat contradictory and confused, only more emotionally based.

[Michael BG]

I think your approach concedes too much and dismisses the idea that some periscope may have traditions that go back to the historical Jesus. Therefore sometimes it is likely that the periscope do contain the sayings of Jesus. The settings for these sayings are more problematic and might be unlikely to contain events involving Jesus. It is likely that a figure like Jesus would perform “miracles” and therefore even behind the miracle stories there might be real events.

[Peter Kirby]

some periscope

the periscope

Periscopes, the bane of every New Testament scholar... damn you, Auto-Correct!

[MrMacSon]

The peris cope

[Michael BG]

Thank you Peter I will try to check my comments better. I hadn’t noticed the auto-correct and I can’t remember ever using the words “pericope” or “pericopes” until my posting above. I had of course come across them before, just never used them. I wonder how my first use escaped the auto-correct police.

[outhouse]

I believe that Matthew saw Jesus as a second Moses

Because he rhetorically paralleled moses greatness and authority, would not mean his whole gospel would point in that direction in that context.

They viewed Jesus as much greater then moses. I view these as simply plagiarized concepts as the foundation of the new movement was the text of Judaism.

and therefore created the Sermon of the Mount to reflect this.

This would have originated from a previous tradition of collected sayings that could be all Hellenistic in nature. Or they could be Hellenistic retelling of typical Galilean parables that had accreted many Hellenistic layers not showing the Aramaic transliterations we should see.

At best they would have more plausibility as Johns teachings more so then Jesus teachings.

Because M used moses rhetorically does not indicate in any way the tradition originated that way.

I reject the historicity of the Sermon on the Mount

That's good it is fiction.

I have to reject everything Matthew states that Jesus said on the mount?

You should understand we don't know.

You cannot give any degree of plausibility on the origin.

With jesus being Johns student, "at best" its likely possibilities are that parables attributed to jesus were just typical Aramaic Galilean parables he learned and reused. He probably created nothing new repeating what he learned.

AT worst, They were Hellenistic parables they wanted attributed to jesus.


I would not posit any more then 50/50 here.

Or should each pericope be studied to discover its development and only when the most likely oldest version has been identified should its historicity be determined?

Yes in the context we don't know but have an open mind to let the evidence help guide plausibility.