Is the Bible Wrong About the Sermon On the Mount and the Sermon On the Plain? (From Israel)

Here's an opinion: I think sometimes we learn more about how to read the Bible from really wrestling with the hard parts than we do from cruising through the easy parts.
Jesus preaches two very similar sermons (one in Matthew and one in Luke). Are they the same sermon? Are they two different sermons? Did someone get their facts messed up?
This video couldn't have happened if it weren't for a bunch of cool people who support the Ten Minute Bible Hour at patreon.com/tmbh. You can be a part of that if you'd like as well.
Also, the footage from Israel in this video is from the same day I did the quick live-stream for Patrons from the site of the Sermon on the Mount. Thanks to everyone who jumped in and said hello that day. We'll do more stuff like that in the future.

[@brandonmyers2449]

Really really love your videos Matt! Great job! As someone who was raised Catholic and has recently started digging into my Christian faith more I really have learned a ton from your nuts and bolts series, acts series, and random tidbits in ndq. Love your stuff and keep up the great work!!!!

[@LlywellynOBrien]

Great to hear of another Catholic getting into the Bible! I am a convert and sometimes find it crazy that some cradle Catholics I meet don't know the Bible very well (that being said, I know plenty of cradles who know it far, far better than me, so no slight to those raised in the Church!).

[@akjkjkak]

Have an extra Thumbs Ups for the animation in the lake

[@TPAAOlson4]

@smartereveryday, the manatee will not die. Embrace it

[@gregthorne4292]

Flannelgraph!

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I spent way too much time getting that trout to jump and land.

[@Ooochild]

I spotted Barbara manatee. Veggie Tales reference

[@Tragic_Solitude]

Digging the little animation easter eggs and variety of settings and illustrations for this video. Production quality is out of this world!

[@patrickhodson8715]

When he pronounced bona fide as it actually should be in Latin I legit almost got chills. I’ve never heard anyone say it like that and it tickled me in my happy linguistic parts

[@tylergraham7352]

I really appreciated the flannelgraph. Following along with Bible stories just hasn’t been the same since I was a small kid. Matt hitting us hard with the nostalgia bomb.

[@curtthegamer934]

I wouldn't put too much weight into Matthew's order vs Luke's order. None of the Gospel writers were concerned about chronology all that much, and if you read an interlinear, they don't say "and then." They usually just say, "This event happened. Also, this event happened. And this event happened. This isn't necessarily the order it happened in, but I'm telling a series of vignettes, not a biography."

[@ctrlaltshift]

This is true except for in Matthew and Mark, where they often use words like "immediately". In those cases they are usually bringing the chronology to the reader's attention for context or comparison.

[@curtthegamer934]

@@ctrlaltshift Those are the few areas where chronology does come into play. I'm currently working on harmonizing the Gospels into one continuous story, and the differing order can get confusing. So paying attention to where one writer says, "After these things," where the others don't has been helpful in some spots. In other spots, where none of the four writers really wrote what order the events happened in, I usually just followed Mark's order.

[@ctrlaltshift]

CurtTheGamer Couldn't have said it better myself. I wish you luck on your gospel harmonizing!

[@stephanecaron8894]

I know that Luke was written specifically to be in chronological order (this was talked about in one of Matt's other videos), while one of the other Gospels (I want to say Matthew but I could be wrong) was written in a thematic order (eg: birth and early life, miracles, sermons and parables, death and resurrection).

[@curtthegamer934]

@@stephanecaron8894 Yes. Luke and Mark generally agree with each other as to the order of events. I remember reading a study Bible once, where the guy who wrote it said that the reason the order was written is because some of these events happened twice. That's why there are two demonics at Gadara in Matthew, but appears to be just one (though not made explicit about it) in Mark and Luke. But while it works for some miracles (such as the blind men at Jericho, which I can buy as an event that happened quite often), with other miracles it does not. For instance, if the two healings of demonics are different events, why do both miracles have the demons cast into pigs? If the healing a dead girl is two different events (Matthew doesn't mention her father's name, which is where the guy gets his idea), then why do both miracles also have the healing of a bleeding woman in the middle of them. It's not impossible that these things happened almost exactly the same way twice, but it really strains credibility. I have rejected that guy's suggested timeline because of those reasons. I'm pretty much just going with my own guesses as to what order it was, using evidence from the narratives themselves, rather than somebody's timeline that's already online.

[@christainkid4745]

This is the only channel on youtube were manatees and Jesus live together in peace. Love you stuff!

[@pumpknhd]

I love the little graphic insertions of off pudding and manatees. Brilliant and very humorous touches. I'm definitely a fan of your channel, brother.

[@ctrlaltshift]

The flannel-graph! I remember playing with those in Sunday School! Also, thank you for this wonderful information. I had no idea "Sermon on the Plain" existed before this video.

[@samuelcooley9102]

Awesome video matt you approach these idea so graciously I really appreciate that. Looks like you have been preparing some of these videos for a long time. Keep it up

[@uncledungeonmaster1617]

Music is always super fun in these videos. As is the editing. Well done, sir, well done!

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Thanks! I have a lot of fun putting it together.

[@BillWalkerWarren]

Cool one ! I do see that Luke is a collection of testimonies an less of a chronological account of what happened. Great job as always. Blessings

[@personjfreak]

In one of my Bible classes in college we tried to tackle this subject and threw out a few more ideas. The two that stuck out to me were, 1, Matthew was using the mount symbolically to compare Jesus to Moses on mount Zion because his audience, the jews, would be looking for something like that and be able to make the connection. 2, Luke was making a theological point for his gentile, and otherwise mixed audience that the "level place" makes everyone equal in the eyes of God.

[@merrymanson]

Please, keep up the good work of your chanel! You are awesome and you do help alot of people get thru some of the more difficult parts of the Bible. God bless!

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I hugely appreciate that. Thanks for the encouragement.

[@waynewrz]

Love the 'flannelgraph" at the end. Thanks for taking time to talk through these and wrestling with each of the evidences.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

You bet Wayne. I got way too invested in flannelgraphing last week.

[@waynewrz]

You can never over invest in flannelgraph. Just ask my old Sunday School teacher Chris.

[@lukestegmann2371]

I've really been enjoying these. It's always fun to see a different perspective. Matt, I think you're doing a great job, keep up the good work. I came here from NDQ and I can't help but think of the massive bruise you had when you filmed the part in Israel

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Thanks Luke, and you're not wrong about that bruise. I went to the ER the morning after I filmed this. It was crazy.

[@Seth_Murphy_00]

I enjoy your explanations. 👍 Keep up the good work

[@Gabefalconb]

The musical que when the leper gets healed was “super”

[@zacharyreid1534]

Animations on point Matt. Keep it up!

[@erlandjohansen7195]

"Off pudding" Matt is peak dad humor and I love it

[@PattersonsRock]

I like to think of it as a sermon on the mount, and the sermon on the plateau... I guess plain is fine too. Another great video.

[@GeekSpeakDesign]

The manatee @ 9:00 😂

[@davidtaylorsr]

I too, prefer to add the word "apparent" when addressing these issues. Thanks for your validation Matt.

[@Kc9gnw]

Cool I like the explanations. I heard one pastor make the comment that it is not odd for him when guest preaching to re-preach a sermon he had already delivered to his home church, with minor tweaks to fit the new audience. We can see Christ doing something similar in the some of the similar stories from the Bible.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Excellent Video again Matt. One question though, at 5:45 you say Matthew the dude who wrote the book. We know forsure that the book was from the account of Matthew, but was it written by him too? I’ve heard a lot if different opinions i’d love to hear your thoughts. Doesn’t challenge my faith as like you said we should be down to just read and interpret openly, however i an curious about it. Thanks P.S , There’s also another issue of geography i’d like to see you touch on. In luke 6 after the sermon Jesus tells his disciples to take his Boat and sail off to Copernum , but in Mark it says Bethsheda (hope I spelled those right) any insight to this?

[@610garage]

9:02 The manatee. LOL :)

[@mattrman3]

I subbed from NDQ but pretty much dismissed this channel because Destin is better than you. Now that I see this, I regret not watching sooner. Great video! Can't wait for HN!

[@curiosityhub]

Thanks for another great video! What do you think about the 'plain' and 'mount' being intentional images in themselves? As Luke’s 'plain’ seems to nicely reflect the gospel’s theme of universal inclusion and Jesus’ shared humanity with us (as he traces the genealogy back to Adam). Whereas, Matthew's 'mount’ seems in line with his theme of Jesus’ majesty as the Messiah. Similarly, his genealogy is more focused on David. Also, the 'mount’ could even be playing to Matthew's Jewish audience to stir a connection back to Moses, as his gospel often draws parallels to the old testament/Tanakh. Ultimately, I think the difference highlights the deeper truth that both authors are trying to communicate beyond literal facts, but I’d really appreciate your thoughts on that interpretation? Thanks

[@matmontgomerymusic]

curiosityhub I like it. I think I heard Tim Mackie from the Bible Project say that mountains are a recurring theme throughout Matthew.

[@curiosityhub]

@@matmontgomerymusic thanks I'll try check out what he said, they put out some quality stuff too

[@cary4603]

Where do I find people who discuss the Bible, Theology and application like you? lol Seriously. I want this.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Well you're always welcome here! That's one place I can vouch for.

[@cary4603]

@@MattWhitmanTMBH I am all in then.

[@rustychilders7231]

I am interested in your view of Matthew 12-3 where Jesus talks of David, I cannot help but wonder who got it wrong and how it happened. The fact that Jesus claims David was with others when the OT claims he was alone. David was alone because he was fleeing. It does not shake my faith but makes me curious how this has been handed down so many times. I presume it has not been changed to maintain the originality of the document.

[@captainshark9827]

How many times have you been to Israel? Are all of these filmed on the same trip?

[@ElArana]

Fake News! Total Letdown! The only flannelgraph I saw was the one you were wearing and I still don't know which patriotic color is best.

[@CplBaker]

Thank you!

[@jamesolivito4374]

Good video ! I take the Bible for what it says, and use common sense to understand it. Sometimes people read too much into it and try to make it too mystical and confusing leading to mistranslated scripture. Different languages have different ways of relating time or tense, sometimes causing language barriers for scribes. It is totally believable , two sermons , same day , and basically same topic but to two groups one with member from first group also in attendance.

[@Ov3rTheTop]

Do you still have a picture of off pudding on your harddrive? :3

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I do. It's in a folder labeled "commonly used images."

[@fazzitron]

Manatee!

[@markalleneaton]

Something that causes me to go with Matthew's "chronology" over Luke's is Matthew's closer proximity to the events themselves. He was physically present for much of what he wrote (after his calling in Mt. 9) and, assuming he used Mark as a starting point, would have been in a position to personally verify Mark's narrative as an eye witness for much of it. Matthew also personally knew Jesus and the other disciples who were present for events prior to Matthew's own calling in Mt. 9, making him much closer to the primary sources of those earlier events. Luke was writing much later (and states in Lk 1:2 that his narrative is based on what was given to him by eye witnesses), and the lens of hindsight may blur the particular order of events while focusing on the key content. (Granted, secondary sources can be more accurate than primary sources, but I believe both Gospels are equally inspired by the same Spirit through different writers.)

[@dabeamer42]

(~ 6:30) or the chronologies aren't as exact as we're used to defining "chronology". Matt's (oops...Matthew's) gospel is more topically arranged (and therefore, theoretically less chronologically exact) than Luke, which Matt (W) kinda acknowledged in a teeny text box in the corner of the screen, ~ 7:50. LOVED the flannelgraph, btw...it really made Matt's take the best option. I mean, if you've seen it on a flannelgraph, you've seen The Truth, right? ;-)

[@Laura-qp9iw]

I recently read through Matthew and I definitely noticed that it seemed to be arranged very thematically. Like he had a unified story to tell and brought up the circumstances that fit together and helped you understand why they mattered. I'm curious as to why Matt doesn't buy the arguments of people who argue that

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I agree that Matthew is obviously arranging his content throughout the book with thematic emphasis in mind, but in chapters 5-9, he's using pretty specific language to describe what he views as a chronological list. The large parts of Matthew might be flexed around a bit, but this subsection seems very ordered.

[@aeabottss22]

Weren’t both of these accounts written by someone who wasn’t at the event? If that is the case, and the accounts were written from other people’s memory, is it possible that the people simply messed up the timeline? I know I can get things out of order when recalling what happened on a certain day a long time ago, even if it was an important day.

[@cuthalionxvi]

Matthew's chronology (as shown in the video -- I didn't double check) has Matthew himself joining up shortly after. So, he certainly would have caught up pretty quickly on what had been happening, and he then was part of Jesus's group for a few (3?) years after that, having plenty of opportunity to pick up any details he didn't witness. Luke portrays his book as more of a report based on his looking into things to find out what Jesus did and inform his (sponsor? client?) audience. He opens with: "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." (Luke 1:1-4, NET) It's unclear, at least in that translation, whether he's claiming to have been keeping up on Jesus news while it was all going on or if he means that he tracked things down to their beginning. That said, you're absolutely right. It's certainly possible for people to misremember how events fit together; happens all the time. Many Christians get picky about it because of the belief that these writings are intended by God to be authoritative, so it suddenly matters a lot whether things are out of order as a mistake or on purpose.

[@BryGy]

Another great story where you link the history to the religious element itself. Thank you for this. And I see you still haven't gained control of r/historynugget

[@thiery572]

Thanks.

[@tineeldridge8302]

love this kind of bible study.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Cool! Much more to come!

[@greglauderdale7595]

I have never missed my full size arcade of Street Fighter 2 Championship Edition more! Why did I ever get rid of that? Maybe I did it intionally.

[@PotatoFi]

I appreciated two things in this video: 1. The little flannelgraph Capernaum actually looks like the synagogue at Capernaum. 2. The tune from Zelda. Don't worry, I appreciated other things about the video too. Those were just the big ones.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

You appreciated what mattered, and I'm grateful for that.

[@sthelenskungfu]

It's also possible that the main themes of the two sermons are presented as the core of Jesus's teaching, which he gave many times throughout his ministry. I think the tendency toward treating text like it needs to represent a stenographer or video footage is unfair to the text.

[@maxcap60]

was that a WY trout?

[@LadyPatienceK]

Might Jesus have been down the hill facing uphill, and the crown up the hill facing downhill? When I was there almost 5 years ago, the field looked to me like a natural amphitheatre.

[@newbiegamelover4767]

7:57 Ooohhh! Flannelgraph!😀

[@AlBarathur]

The gospel of Luke is the one that claims at the beginning, using 3 different words, that it is concerned with historic accuracy as we understand it. And looking carefully, one might notice Matthew loves to group things in themes. The solution is simple the use of words and expressions like "immediately after" etc did not mean to those people what it means to us today. For example I challenge you to find a "meanwhile" clause within the gospel narratives, like we do today when things happen simultaneously in a movie. Since meanwhile does not exist in the narrative style, we must understand how it would be to tell a story without "meanwhile" clauses when the meanwhile exist. I could find only a shy example in John 4:31. But Within Matthew's narrative, even in cases where he could very well have used a "while" clause, that thing just don't seem to exist for Matthew. For example Matthew 8: 11-12, where we could say the two things are happening simultaneously, Matthew will relay it to you almost like "one thing happened but the other thing happened too". Could this be a sign that Matthew has a through and through Aramaic culture and thinking pattern, so that even though he is capable of speaking Greek, some "modern" Greek concepts were just outside his scope, while John, was more of a "modernist" in terms of his use of language, and so he uses more complex narrative concepts. So how to tell a story in as few words as possible, without a while clause, telling a story that happened in a world in which interruptions, complexities, similarities, concurrences, happen all the time. I mean do you really think Jesus delivered his speeches without anyone ever interrupting him? But the story has to be told, so that it fits a roll of scroll, at first written by a scribe that is cheaper, and not so skillful therefore writing in bigger letters in the scroll leaving less space for content? That's right, you chop of all the complexities of interruptions, concurrences, similarities, and you tell one true story. Other authors will chop off other parts, while keeping the important stuff, even so, content was cut out, and when you cut out parts of the story of the life of Jesus just so his story fits the scroll, how are you going to waste time explaining minutia? So I would not interpret more in the connective words used to tell the story than what they are joining together. Matthew does a fair amount of "grouping similar events", he is very thematic, its very easy to memorize the contents of Matthew chapter by chapter in headlines precisely because of that fact. Luke however is the only gospel that claims something close to our modern historic storytelling "ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, καθεξῆς" Luke 1:3 (from the top down, accurately and in order.)

[@joshua_tobler]

Speaking of Bible crises, can you do/have you done a video about whether God endorses Genocide in commanding the Israelites to wipe out the Philistines? I feel like this may be a Romans 13 type issue, because the prima facie reading kinda doesn't resonate very well with most of what God says about loving your enemies and stuff, so there must be something going on here that I'm not understanding.

[@TasJess]

Excellent use of flannelgraph

[@diedertspijkerboer]

I once heard (don't remember the source) that people delivered the sermon on the mount as an actual sermon and that it didn't really work. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't say those things. Maybe the sermon is a summary of a longer sermon and I assume that other explanations exist.

[@mercywalschek2695]

That's actually a really good theory. Makes sense.

[@freddoto]

i value your opinion

[@joselozano8391]

By the way, the book of Luke and Acts are both written by the same author, as you may already known. And they might be both historical books. Written and addressed to Theophilus , to a friend and lover of God. Luke 1.1-4 It seemed good to him to write all those things in order. 1. He wrote a personal letter to lovers and friends of God in general. 2. It is a historical book as the book of Acts of the apostles. 3. These books might have been written in code. 4. Hoping they are not gnostic.

[@retepwal]

I think the problem is that we modern readers expect the text to adhere to *our* rules about how it should behave. We want to read it as a modern biography or a news story. In that case, the discrepancies are a problem. Or...They were writing a biography the way ancient writers wrote biographies, not to be objective, but to convey a point (John admits as much in John 20:31). In Matthew, the author is trying to show how Jesus fits into the broader story of Israel. Moses gave the law on a mountain and so the author sets this sermon--one that shapes the way Jesus' followers are to interpret the law--on a mountain (Matthew sets a lot of important stuff on mountains). Matthew feels free to fudge the topography because it gives him a chance to use the setting to help the reader. His choice to set it on a mountain would be deeply meaningful to a Jewish audience (who would be attuned to the mountain thing). It becomes a context clue for the broader meaning of Jesus' words. While this would be a no-no in modern history/biography it would have been perfectly acceptable in Jesus' day. We make a mistake when we say that if it doesn't follow our expectations that it is erroneous. We have to expect that people who wrote the scriptures would do so according to their own cultural expectations.

[@rogercarl3969]

This can also be explain by the oral tradition of the Bible. Nobody was writing things down verbatim when Jesus spoke but carried the gospel message in their memories. As they start to write pen to paper, and maybe even long after the death of Jesus, each person remembers and identifies different things important to them and may also employ different literary devices. The order of the events are not important nor is the style in which it was written; what is important is the message of the Sermon. The ethos is more important than the particulars. Whether he spoke on a mountain or plain doesn't really matter and, as you discovered on your trip to Israel, it may actually have been the same place as sometimes it is hard to discern where a mountain begins and a plain ends.

[@JSW9174]

maybe the writer of luke didn't have a record of where the sermon took place so just made up that it was on a plain

[@root1657]

I think it's clear to all of us that THE most important and revealing part of this message is the little animated fish jump.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I spent a shockingly large amount of time on that, so thank you for noticing

[@enriqueojedadinamarca2619]

You should go to Mount Athos in Greece

[@davidjones8484]

Statements taken from witnesses only minutes after an event vary a lot. The Gospels were written some years after the sermon was given. If they are somewhat different it only adds to their validity because people’s memories vary. If they were identical I would be far more skeptical.

[@joshpikka9005]

Easy answer, author's choice. Matthew is the Jewish gospel and traditionally Jewish leaders gave talks on mountains, like Moses. Mountains are holy places because they are closer to heaven, so to Jewish people Jesus is holy and speaking with God's voice because he is on the mountain. So, Matthew puts him on a mountain (no matter if he was on a mountain or not in real life). However, Luke is writing to Non-Jewish people, they would have no idea of the Jewish mountain-thing, and wouldn't care about Moses. And, Luke also likes to write that Jewish and Non-Jewish people are even, so you wouldn't put the Jew elevated over the crowds of people. He would instead put them all on a plain, whether it originally happened on a mountain or not.

[@protochris]

Not very confusing when the details are sorted out. First, Matthew's version comes from the Church, which has a liturgical flow to Jesus life. Luke probably got his raw material from another source. Second, the Greek word translated as plain just means an area like a platform. Jesus was probably on the mount, then stepped down to a more flattened area closer to the crowd. Luke has Jesus going up to the mount alone to choose his disciples, so it would have interrupted the narrative to say he went right back up again. Matthew only mentions Jesus ascending "very high" on two occasions: The temptation and the transfiguration. It's simply a matter of a choice of words to fit the two narratives, nothing more.

[@misseli1]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Gospels were purposefully achronological and more focused on setting up themes rather than telling a traditional narrative. In fact I think I'm pretty sure that's the case.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I think you are correct Ellie.

[@joescoggins5937]

My take is that Matthew's account is chronological, and in the right order, plus, many of them were probably there and knew the order. On the other hand, Luke was just relating multiple events as they came to mind. That is common for me. When I'm telling stuff I don't put them in chronoligical order. Something someone says, or a circumstance reminds me of something that happened and I tell about it. Then I think of something else, maybe that happened at another time, and I tell it. Matthew was writing to Jews, who would have been looking for errors in chronology, telling them that Jesus is Messiah, while Luke was writing to Gentiles, an audience who would not have cared about the chronology, but would have cared about the points of the stories: Jesus is Savior.

[@jasonpratt5126]

I definitely agree with the somewhat-same-material-twice-the-same-day theory, but the narrative connections between GosMatt and GosLuke are even more complex than you listed, Matt (though that's a good quick visual summary, I agree). And putting those two batches together doesn't account for GosMark's own connective parallels to the material, even though Matthew and Luke are reporting material not found in Mark's account! Once GosMark's connections are factored in, especially where he's paralleling Luke on some key points (though not on the Sermon material specifically of course, because that isn't in GosMark), I don't think Jesus gave the second version of the sermon up on the mount (where He had gone to GET AWAY from crowds after healing the two blind men and then the mute demented man (who shows up again in GosMatt soon afterward -- on my grammatic time-cue analysis, a ton of this material all happens on the same day, and all three Synoptic authors are using programmatic notes written down earlier by scribes in Jesus' group, mentioned by Jesus in GosMatt, dating back to that point) omigosh how many parentheses do I have here...?) (Think that's right. {g}) Instead, I think when Mark and Luke are put together, the people are gathered on a "plain", actually a beach near the Bethsaida (fishing port) suburb of Capernaum, but Jesus pushes out onto a boat, into Lake Galilee, to teach them better. And that's where the second version is preached (although both Matthew and Luke are conflating material from both versions into different scenes for topical convenience.) So, first version is preached to some but not all of the disciples on the mount overnight. At dawn Jesus calls the nearby disciples together, and appoints the Twelve. They go down to Capernaum, meet the Centurion and his entourage (different authors put this at different times, probably reflecting some back-and-forth between the Centurion sending Jewish elders as messengers and then coming himself or otherwise forestalling Jesus when He agrees to go heal the boy, so that Jesus won't enter into an unclean house), then (per Mark) go into a house (evidently Jesus' family house, probably to eat breakfast); then down from there to a level place (so lakeward from Capernaum). But the crowds are pressing too closely, especially thanks to events from the day before when the bleeding woman had been healed. So Jesus does what He had recently done when Peter and John finally accepted the call (having kind-of refused it twice earlier), and has Peter put a boat out onto the lake where the acoustics would work best under the circumstances and He can address more people. Matthew and Luke (and even Mark to some extent) recall the _private_ teaching and its material, as well as the _public_ teaching event which covers much the same material but more extensively and not necessarily all the private material from the night before when Jesus was preparing to choose which disciples would be the official royal ambassadors (so to speak). The authors, naturally, ended up simplifying all this for convenience, but did so in different ways. But all three Synoptic authors included specific time cues linking various bits together, while otherwise providing more general time cues representing flexibility in moving material around for topical convenience, and here we are. {g} (But as noted, I inferred from continuing to trace out the grammatic and narrative connections that the entire narrative block is much larger than even the Sermon material, and covers other famous things like the healing of Jairus' daughter, and the teaching around the warning about the sin against the Holy Spirit, and Jesus' family coming out to get him, and Jesus switching to parables after His local Pharisee party opponents try to convince the crowd on self-contradictory grounds that He works for Satan, and then some parable explanations that night to the disciples in a more private setting. It's a full couple of days!)

[@jasonpratt5126]

Several years ago, I posted the whole harmonization project at the Christian Cadre journal here: christiancadre.blogspot.com/2008/04/king-of-stories-harmonization-index.html

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I always appreciate your thoughtful comments Jason. Mark's account does add to the equation depending on how we harmonize - he seems more interested in banging out the details in clumps and then getting on with business, so I feel like we get more evidence to work with from Luke and Matthew.

[@jasonpratt5126]

We definitely get more evidence (in bulk) to work from in GosMatt and GosLuke, whether independently or where they're borrowing from shared programmatic material (the "Q" source). Like you say, Mark is more interested in banging out the details in clumps -- as you've probably read somewhere, he's probably writing a piece to be orally performed for an audience in about 2 hours. (One of many interesting characteristics shared with GosJohn. I have a pet theory that John Mark later composed GosJohn for the Apostle John and other eyewitnesses; the way he worked with the Apostle Peter and some of the programmatic material used by the apostles in their preaching, for GosMark. But the personal recollections naturally have a different flavor from the apostle's official programmatic material, including his own personal recollections of some key incidents.) That said, I was surprised to infer that Mark relates his material more chronologically than Matthew or Luke, though not as chronologically as GosJohn's narrative (which only needs one narrative flip within its own text.)

[@jasonpratt5126]

If you want to drop me an email sometime, by the way, use my name with no spaces at compuserve. (The tail end is com and the dot. Obviously I'm breaking it up to avoid spambots. {g} )

[@paulmadden1458]

Interesting.

[@SDsc0rch]

people watching on cell phones (me!) are having trouble reading the smaller text

[@opfipip3711]

I love this channel. But what they called "mount" is certainly not a mountain. So I have no problem at all. And I think that Jesus repeated his messages very often so that everybody could hear them . So maybe it were two different sermons. What counts is the content.

[@ThePainkiller9995]

Thank you for saying bonafide the correct way

[@dimesonhiseyes9134]

What was all that singing in the background. It sounded like a party.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

There were two large groups of pilgrims there. One from the American South and one from somewhere in Africa. They were singing beautifully.

[@dimesonhiseyes9134]

@@MattWhitmanTMBH So what your saying is it was a party...

[@andrewpayne4466]

Did you ever consider the fact that Matthew was there but Luke was not. Luke learnt the story from Paul and Paul learnt the story from one of the other apostles. This would explain why the sequence of events was difference. I don’t think God cares about the order, just the moral ethics and spirituality behind the story. Love your videos. Especially that you give both sides of the argument.

[@jesseengland456]

any books on this?

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Maybe? Some commentaries touch on it lightly, but I noticed that it wasn't a big enough deal to make the encyclopedia of Bible difficulties.

[@AReaverZappy]

A good word for the garden is verdant I think.

[@RyoriNoTetsujinfan]

Also, one taps for red mana whereas the other taps for white mana.

[@jasonpratt5126]

Okay, I lol'd at that a lot more than I should have!

[@Morna777]

Maybe the ancient world didn't care as much about chronology as we do. The creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 is presented in different ways.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Matt, I'd be interested in knowing the evidence for and against the truthfulness of the church tradition which says the Sermon on the Mount was there (i.e. Church Fathers etc). I'm less convinced by arguments that the same or similar sequences of events couldn't happen twice in Jesus's life. (especially with stuff like healing lepers or paralytics, Jesus probably did this dozens of times during his earthly ministry: indeed he is recorded healing ten lepers at the same time and telling his disciples to cleanse leper*s*, i.e. more then one leper). From experience in my life and those of people I know, it seems God often acts and deliberately arrange events so the same or similar things happen several times, in order to prove a point. This can also be seen in the (same) Gospels and Acts. For example, in Mark, he did the feeding of the 5000 in chapter 6, then he did the feeding of the 4000 in chapter 8, then pointing back to the previous two events he implied he could do another bread multiplication miracle on a boat with his disciples later in chapter 8. With a slightly different paraphrasing of the third implied miracle, if those three events were all recorded in different gospels someone might naively assume they are talking about the same thing, but we know from the way Mark recorded it that they are not. In the same way, in Acts 2, people get filled with the Holy Spirit, start speaking in tongues, Peter preaches the gospel, and people get baptised. In Acts 10, Peter preaches the gospel, people get filled with the Holy Spirit, start speaking in tongues, and people get baptised. These were two different events. That said, your explanation of the Sermon on the Mount and the Plain happening as different events on the same day is pretty good, I'll think about it some more but I think I'll probably end up adopting it.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I did a little poking around at that, and even though I cut my explanation of that tradition from the final edit of the video, I think the evidence is pretty strong. At the very least, that spot has been venerated dating back to very early Christian times. That and a reasonable comparison of topography and the text are the two ways that the strongest cases are made for these Bible locations' accuracy.

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@MattWhitmanTMBH Thanks. :-) Although by "topography" do you mean a hill with a flat bit on top, allowing it to be called both a mount and a plain? Because if that is the case, the logic that says the sermon on the mount and on the plain are the same thing will be to some extent circular.

[@alexhunter6222]

Flannelgraph ftw

[@s19wong]

I ride with the "different descriptions to make a narrative" way of interpreting. Also that the human authors could have made mistakes in recollecting the events as they happened, which are not necessarily the most important points. That doesn't impact the Scripture's divinity to me. I feel like the problem presented in the video is more minor. But I've heard people give comments saying that some books in the OT that have clearly different theological bents/purposes from book to book, and have contradicting descriptions of the same event for those reasons. I'm not sure if you pointed to this video as a response to a viewer on the figurative/literal video, but their question still stands for me: do you think we should we take events like the flood/Eden/10 plagues (to me, these seem to be presented historically) as a kind of myth/parable or as historical fact? What is at stake for the Bible as a divine book, nothing or everything? Thanks for the video!

[@Fede_uyz]

7:06 Regarding Luke getting the chronology wrong, that seems pretty counterproductive, as the whole point of Luke's gospel (as recorded by luke in chapter 1 verses 1&2) is to present a complete and orderly account of everything Jesus did. Luke specificially says he investigated and gather information regarding all of this, so he's Gospel I think, is the one with the most trust worthy chronology Now, Matthew doesnt make this claim of orderly telling, So at least for me, if someone got the details on order wrong, it was Matthew

[@micah_lee]

It could be information was more important that chronology and thats what luke was talking about.

[@SethMason88]

Gardenian is the word you were looking for.

[@kevincline704]

I think it is important to understand that people write differently. We all come from different walks of life. This holds true for the disciples too. Not all of the disciples were educated (college like). However, they wrote about Jesus as best as they could. Jesus said, "Follow Me." and they did. Luke was a doctor and as a doctor one has to be specific. I mean like REALLY specific. Dot your "i" and cross your "t" type specific. A doctor has to know exactly what is wrong and give every detail leading up to that. Matthew on the other hand was a tax collector. Money! What money? Yes, money was important, but I don't think Matthew was as specific as Luke was in his writings. Doctors go from here to this to that so they know how something was, is, or, whatever. Matthew more or less just wrote to his best ability. Matthew was written about a year after Jesus' death and Luke was written like 30 years later. Maybe Luke went and revisited the places to ensure it was all correct. I just take it based on faith.

[@johnskinner1282]

Virtual flannelgraphs? The future is now!

[@Kintizen]

Actually the biggest crisis with the text of The sermon on the Mount. Location is wrong, it most likely was and Mount Hermon.

[@chrisessick7192]

Its possible Luke is just wrong about when it happened. Hes not an eyewitness and interviewed/researched from people's memories. He is writing specifically in a sort of school report and he could have just missed a detail.

[@pollyjetix2027]

Anyone ever hear a preacher give a message a second time, with minor revisions for the second audience? He's using the same set of notes, but he mixes it up a bit.

[@wepreachchrist6685]

Yes! I even took notes while listening twice lol

[@joycewasser2883]

I see no problem here. Jesus preached on the same topic two different times. Similar events afterwards...well maybe the two sermons where one after the other and both just weren't recorded in each gospel.

[@alexsenf4911]

Reminds me of Bart Ehrman.

[@anniemaull5605]

Maybe it's because two people are telling this two different views. No two people see things the same.

[@endofscene]

"..Matthew, the guy who wrote the book.." What makes you think Matthew the tax collector (mentioned in Matthew 9) wrote "Matthew" (an internally anonymous document)? You will note that the author of "Matthew" talks of Matthew the tax collector in the third person not the first person. Also, your theory doesn't explain all the other events that are out of place on Matthew's and Luke's timelines...

[@PointSpecial09]

I don't think it's a giant fraud. But perhaps it is s giant frog. Because that's what I thought I heard Matt say...

[@patrickhodson8715]

PointSpecial09 stop copying my profile pic

[@keats182]

The authors of the Gospels weren't interested in creating an exact chronological recounting of Christ's life. The fourth theory was right. Ancient biographies were written thematically and not chronologically. The stories were meant to communicate an aspect of Christ. Many ancient biographies of the day are like this.

[@patrickhodson8715]

Your pleasingly accurate pronunciation of the phrase “bona fide” was tainted by your absolute butchering of “Capernaum.”

[@JayDagny]

CANNOT express enough how appreciative I am of you not using a white-washed depiction of Jesus in your animation

[@CplBaker]

I don't think anything is wrong with either version because you are looking at two point of views. At the least I think Matthew wouldn't care about Peter's Mother in Law or ask about her, especially before he follows Jesus. Have to look at criminals and drug users today they aren't exactly 100% on their recall of past events. Especially when it deals with someone's mother in law.

[@edwardlecore141]

2. is the mostly likely, never forget the Bible is written from a human point of view, not a flawless, divine one. Inspired, not dictated. We can be far more forgiving than those stuck with the Koran or inerrant doctrine, as we recognize God prefers to work through free humans, not mindless robots.

[@davidmckay5431]

garden-like = "bucolic"

[@chrisessick7192]

And of course Luke could just be making a different point or putting the story into a better context for his retelling.

[@lilchristuten7568]

Luke's gospel was written to someone based on his investigation of the events, so it stands to reason that he wasn't putting everything in chronological order but more in a thematic order.

[@chrisessick7192]

@@lilchristuten7568 ehh I mean yes that is certainly possible but Luke absolutely admits at the outset that hes not an eyewitness to the events and is attempting to record them as they happened: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught

[@chrisessick7192]

@@lilchristuten7568 I guess what I am saying is yes he could have, mabye did but it's one of several possibilities.

[@magatism]

Sermon on the mount appears fake,, everything else Jesus said is cryptic except the long, monologues sermon.. I think it was added later.

[@MikeGrant-q7b]

What a tragedy the birth of Jesus is