Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[XTalk] What is the best way to handle the Sermon on the Mount historically?

Expand Messages
  • Brian Tucker
    What is the best way to handle the Sermon on the Mount historically? 1. Split up the sermon (and its Lukan counterpart) into small pieces, to assign them to
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 28, 2000
      What is the best way to handle the Sermon on the Mount historically?

      1. Split up the sermon (and its Lukan counterpart) into small pieces,
      to assign them to places all round the Mediterranean world and times
      all through the first century, and to credit the evangelists with
      complete originality in arranging or even inventing the material.

      2. Meier splits it up by assigning authenticity to the core beatitudes
      in Q (1994:322-23), an argument when is strongly dependent on the
      existence of Q. McNicol has provided a reconstruction that shows how
      Luke may have excerpted Matthew's sermon. (1996:103-104). Meier splits
      the other material into M beatitudes, he writes, "It may be that these
      Q and M lists represent but two surviving examples of various lists of
      beatitudes that circulated in the early church and were attributed to
      Jesus." (1994:335)

      3. Allison depends on much of this material for properly understanding
      Jesus as millenarian prophet. (1998:47-8, 62-3, 67-8, 123, 127-8, 205).
      I realize Allison understands Matthew has derived 8/9 of them from his
      sources, with number 8 being a creation by Matthew, with only 3 going
      back to Jesus.

      4. It seems logical to accept all 9 of the beatitudes as coming from
      tradition by Matthew. It is obvious that Matthew has been redactionally
      involved (3 and 6). There is no reason to create a beatitude that
      repeats what was said earlier. Matthew's vocabulary "righteousness"
      doesn't preclude reception from tradition. It seems to me that to
      restrict the authentic sayings as only the three is: too prohibitive
      and assumes to know more than we can know. (See Hagner 90) Wright
      points out that, "It is rather, as it stands, a challenge to Israel to
      be Israel. This provides a plausible historical context from which the
      sermon occurred.

      5. Now, I am not interested in simply affirming a traditional view of
      the sermon but my question is, with the different ways of looking at
      the evidence for the information, can we speak authoritatively about
      the Q core being authentic and thereby chopping up the sermon, or is it
      better to understand the sermon as an foundational part of Jesus'
      eschatological message concerning Israel being Israel (Wright: 1996:
      288), and allow for the possibility that Luke used Matthew and thus
      eliminating the need for Q and the chopping up of the sermon?


      Thanks
      Brian Tucker
      Jbtucker@...
      Riverview, MI
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.