Matthew 5: Is this 'pure' Jesus?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Matthew 5
"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

The whole chapter fills me with awe.
It is way ahead of it's time, in my opinion.

Most skeptics and scholars can locate the source material for Gospel Scripture. This can be done with some of Matthew 5 but it will require work. If you find an equivalency in the OT to anything in Matthew 5 I will conceded that it is 'old news'

If you want to chip away at this ,what remains unsourced, can be considered pure Jesus.

Whittle the Chapter (it is not too long),down to nothing if you are up to it.
This will be easy ,at the start.
Hone your skills of enquiry, and take your time.

Side dish for skeptics.
Is Matthew 5 ,unrealistic, theological/philosophical, nonsense.
Why?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

I can't prove it isn't Jesus, but I don't think so.I can prove (to anyone with an open mind) that it is not original gospel material and was transported in via a document with a list of sayings and doings on Jesus acting as a New Moses, revising the law, and not abolishing the Law, but 'Fulfilling it' which means it has gone in observances and is covered by 'play nice'.

Jewsof course will not buy that for a minute.

But the point is it has to be a supplementary document because of how Matthew and Luke use the material (Mark doesn't use it) Matthew uses the whole thing in one sermon. Luke uses half in his sermon but from the Lord's prayer (taught when they set out for Jerusalem) bit of it crop up on the way to Peraea.

There are also bits that are more defined in place and time, which is why we get the temptations and John's question. So I can't prove this isn't actually Jesus (though I don't think so) but I am darn sure it is demonstrably not Synoptic original.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - " So I can't prove this isn't actually Jesus (though I don't think so) but I am darn sure it is demonstrably not Synoptic original."

We agree and disagree ,on this.

First of all you cannot reasonably be allowed to leave a 'darn sure' accusation hanging in thin air. You need to pain yourself towards providing more specific indicators of the veracity of your 'darn sure' assertion.

I agree with you to this extent, it looks like a copy and paste. The profundity of it has me gasping. if it comes from your mystery document then ...is that 'pure' Jesus. I am asserting that it is not rehashed, direct, OT material. We need the scholars to resolve this, if they can?

The theological absolutism that permeates the whole chapter is very ,very,Jewish,in tone and delivery, in my opinion and I would look for it in The Torah (written and oral) ,or in Rabbinic writings.
Thanks

[Difflugia]

If you want to chip away at this ,what remains unsourced, can be considered pure Jesus.

Why would you consider it to be "pure Jesus" rather than "pure Matthew?"

I find it interesting that Matthew's Jesus has a tendency to remove agency from women. Matthew 5:32 is an interesting spot where translators fudge things a bit to rehabilitate Matthew's Jesus a bit. Here's what the ESV says:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The part I've bolded is wrong. That's not what it says. The verb there for "commit adultery" is in the passive voice. The divorced wife isn't actively doing anything, but rather the adultery is happening to her. She's not committing adultery, but is made adulterated. The two men are the ones that are the only ones with active participation and the divorced and remarried woman is merely a passive participant.

This isn't a fluke. While this is similar to the divorce pericope in Mark 10, Matthew rewrites that one in chapter 19, again removing active participation by the wife.

Mark 10:11-12:

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:9:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

This additionally adds support to TRANSPONDER's thesis. Matthew's just combining existing sources. Mark and another M source both have similar, but not identical divorce sayings. Matthew apparently rewrote Mark's to remove the active participation of women in adultery. If the saying from Matthew 5 is "pure Jesus," it looks like Mark's Jesus is the one "ahead of his time" instead of Matthew's.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]

Hello Difflugia

I would encourage people to read your well considered post. A quote similarity from within the Gospels , and not the OT, does not exclude Matthew 5 from being pure Jesus as per the OP. It doesn't exclude it logically either. Logically ,it detracts from the notion of another source. The notion that Matthew is the author of revolutionary insightfulness ,might have legs , if you wanted to make the case. Good Luck with that.( It was done with Paul)

I mentioned the theological absolutes that the whole Chapter presents.

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


This is the immediate scriptural context for the whole Chapter. This concept is amazing.

Look at your general point Difflugia. The inequality of women , both now and in the past is undeniable, especially as contained within Abrahamic Doctrines.
It is a man's word....but..

When talking about the incident of the Adulteress woman at the well it was my suggestion that that passage pointed to a later addition in the Gospels, and that it was inserted, to appeal for female participation in the early Church. This could well be something similar. This Matthew 5 may be later and may be a relaxation of particularly unfriendly law towards women.

You might ask, how can that be if the woman is now being labelled for having done nothing.

Look at the situation of marriage in traditional religious environments. The woman who is 'left', or cheated upon is inevitably stigmatized by the husband's actions. They have freely (hopefully) chosen to declare themselves a pair before God They have had sex and maybe even children. Now she is a victim of a broken marriage in which she was complicit. ...what God has joined ...and all that. In my own society ,a cheating partner makes the innocent appear a fool.

If I cheat on my wife I demean her esteem and I cause her shame ,within herself( perhaps) and in the public glare. We both signed up for life, to a public audience using Christian scripture, before our God. My wife would probably consider herself to be part of an unbreakable everlasting pact that has evolved into a public humiliation through no actual direct action of her own. There is stigma to most failed entities, ie not finishing a house, going bankrupt, losing your job, etc but this is irretrievably worse because of it's religious placement. That is what a Christian marriage is , an everlasting contract before your God.Life is not perfect, and this standard is and was, considered an aspirational pipe-dream. The penalties were severe in olden times and they are still punitive today. Divorce can be a tragedy for many innocent participants.

Consider the progression in the passage about the young(rich) man who questions Jesus about following him.Jesus illustrates that everyone has a breaking point when climbing the hill of perfection. It must also be recognized that theological remits require a range of application that appears to cover their absolutes. That is what is attempted in Matthew 5. This is not an easy task for actual or theological lawmakers as can be seen by the IVF debacle in the US at the moment. Good law depends on good faith and reason among loving people. Always remember that this same ,Jesus releases the adultress woman from the public punishment of stoning!

Just as today, the Gospels were compelled to arbitrate doctrinally on these commonplace matters and the passage that catches your attention, Difflugia, is contextualized, as the ' absolute' ,,'perfect' theological deduction that can be made from a 1st Century split up.

Now the woman is portrayed as a non active agent in the mutual adultery. Whether or not the fish-wives and sneers at the corner will attribute her woes to not putting up for out 'good dinners' is just common ignorance that theology rarely penetrates.

Thanks( Jesus,God, that was long)

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - " So I can't prove this isn't actually Jesus (though I don't think so) but I am darn sure it is demonstrably not Synoptic original."

We agree and disagree ,on this.

First of all you cannot reasonably be allowed to leave a 'darn sure' accusation hanging in thin air. You need to pain yourself towards providing more specific indicators of the veracity of your 'darn sure' assertion.

I agree with you to this extent, it looks like a copy and paste. The profundity of it has me gasping. if it comes from your mystery document then ...is that 'pure' Jesus. I am asserting that it is not rehashed, direct, OT material. We need the scholars to resolve this, if they can?

The theological absolutism that permeates the whole chapter is very ,very,Jewish,in tone and delivery, in my opinion and I would look for it in The Torah (written and oral) ,or in Rabbinic writings.
Thanks

I didn't explain but Don't be hasty, Master Blaster. Don't assume I can't. The fact is that Matthew has material that is addition and not even his own - the material shared with Luke (who uses it differently) and is not in Mark is neither original Jesus nor original Matthew, and other stuff added by him is frankly daft like the Mobile star or the descending angel and wrong in Jewish terms, like virgin birth, two donkeys and (I suggest) babes and sucklings.

If it's wrong, how can it be eyewitness, never mind original Jesus?

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "If it's wrong, how can it be eyewitness, never mind original Jesus?"

‐---
Stay on point, T, please!
- show that Matthew 5 has an unrevealed source
- explain what is wrong with Matthew 5

Please concern yourself with this OP specific.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "If it's wrong, how can it be eyewitness, never mind original Jesus?"

‐---
Stay on point, T, please!
- show that Matthew 5 has an unrevealed source
- explain what is wrong with Matthew 5

Please concern yourself with this OP specific.
Thanks

I explained, but this is unfamiliar territory so maybe I need to explain more. Only Luke and Matthew have the sermon. Mark does not. It has to be additional material known to them both. So one could say that it was eyewitness material by Matthew copied by Luke, - it can't be Actual eyewitness because otherwise Mark should hint at it. But then Bible xper...Apologists skip over that.

I checked the sermon material and (aside Matthew's variants . Luke duplicates the material until the Lord's prayer. Here he uses all the subsequent material differently. Notably the Lord's Prayer - the most important prayer in the Christian ethos is taught, ostensibly for the first time when they set out for Jerusalem. But Matthew has it taught weeks or months earlier at the sermon on the mount.

From there on Luke uses Sermon material as a teaching here or there along the trip to Peraea,

This was a separate document added in by Matthew and Luke separately, and that Mark has no hint of it is strong evidence that it was made up Christian opinions and teachings and of course not Jesus original. But I reckon none of the sayings and teachings are.

Ball in your court. Why in the light of this evidence which for some reasons appears to have escaped the Experts and Authorities, should anything think there was anything right with Matthew, ch 5 or any other Matthew verbiage?

Here's an example. Luke 16:17
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

This is of course well known and often - debated Sermon material,

Matthew 5:18 ESV For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

but here (in a different form) it is a teaching delivered on the trip to Jerusalem.

I can already hear the excuse, but why would a 2nd sermon (on the level place) leave out the rest of the teachings, omlt to have all of them taught here and there on the trip to Jerusalem, while Matthew has nothing of that.

Deny as you like (Bible apologists do) but on all evidence and reason, this is added in non -original material and (because mark doesn't hint at it) cannot be claimed as Jesus original. To do so takes the apologist out of pointing to evidence that supports the Bible but dismissing the evidence when it doesn't.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Deny as you like (Bible apologists do) but on all evidence and reason, this is added in non -original material and (because mark doesn't hint at it) cannot be claimed as Jesus original "

You make a logical and persuasive argument here, T.
I have no ' but'. It felt like a retrofit, copy and paste to me too. It just raises the bar on Mark material. This is where we are now at. We need to find the source of this content and eliminate it as late 1st Century extrapolation from a ' whatever'. There is a theological and philosophical genius out there somewhere. I still think it is the words of the Jesus figure. I cannot explain why Marks emphasis is so different. Is he too dumb to articulate deep philosophy, or... I do not know.

My instinct is that this stuff was heard and that it was originally, concise and memorable and from a very special person. Mark's Gospel has a rural primitiveness about it that doesn't even touch this thing's cloak.
Do some digging and eliminating. I'm off to do the same!
Thanks!

[Masterblaster]

Hello

I have been digging on this Matthew 5.
The general drift of what I am finding is that it is a breathtaking expansion of the Jewish Law. It was not spoken as a Sermon because it is too much to take in all together, ie Matthew 5/6/7. Matthew 5, on the other hand is very tight and the body of the text relates perfectly to the ending. A Shakespearian Sonnet uses the same process, so as a piece of independent literature, Matthew 5 ,hangs together well. Hats off to the introduction of a level of ethics that cannot be dreamed of attaining, even in todays world. Perhaps more so than ever!
Well Done Jesus!

Thanks