And it might be quite similar! Or very similar with only a few different nuances, as noted which are actually good to verify the originality of the apostle.
There are two subtle problems here. First, you refer to "originality" --- confining ourselves to the so-called Olivet discourse, there is enough similarity in the wording to convince the vast majority of scholars that there is a direct literary relationship between the three versions (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Only one version therefore
might lay claim to being "original" and the others are revisions of it or its source. The so-called Synoptic gospels do
not provide independent attestation of this sayings complex. Second, you refer to "apostle" in connection with gospel authorship ---
tradition connects each of the gospels either to an apostle (Matthew, John) or to a companion of one (Mark, Luke), but
internal evidence suggests they were written by second or third generations of Christians, none of whom had direct connections to his early followers.
That they wrote in Greek May equally indicate the end of the local language due to the end of its nation and the global/universal audience of the reader.
The gospels were written in Greek because it was the most widely used language in the Roman Empire... Aramaic was not used only by Palestinian Jews and it continued to flourish for centuries as both rabbinic literature and the plethora of Christian writings in Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, demonstrate.
Yes they were jews, but they were also the first Christians.
There were no "Christians" listening to the historical Jesus teach and the charge of anachronism stands.
I think you're getting a little defensive in always proclaiming that my interpretations are erroneous when yours could be equally erroneous.
I'm defending my position, but I'm not getting defensive... digs at what you label an "unscholarly" approach are a little irksome, but mostly just amusing.
For one you mentioned the genre of literature. And yet you ignore the prophetic genre of Isaiah 13 which prophetic genre includes if not demands the probability of allegory, symbolic and hyperbolic language.
Prophetic genre? There's no such thing... at least not within historical-critical circles. There is literature purportedly written by and about figures known as "prophets" that may include a number of non-literal
forms such as parable or allegory and that may employ figurative language at times, but there is no prophetic genre
per se. Apocalyptic, on the other hand, is a recognized literary genre within historical-critical circles even if its features are a matter of some debate.
When one cannot objectively defend their stance against analysis, it's common and easy to get offensive towards the person or claim their method rather than the issue at hand is flawed.
Method is extremely important and a section of every good scholarly monograph is devoted to it. Scholars raise objections to method
all the time. You and I are reading the same biblical texts... we come to different conclusions because of our different starting assumptions and methods --- it is perfectly valid to discuss and point out flaws in method, as well as in assumptions.
Can you direct me to a website that refers and teaches the tenants of this historical/critical method?
No, but I can suggest a number of academic books that would provide you with a range of views on the historical-critical method and related issues:
David R. Law,
The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark, 2012)
Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen,
Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Fourth Edition; WJK Press, 2011)
John Barton,
The Nature of Biblical Criticism (WJK Press, 2007)
John J. Collins,
The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Eerdmans, 2005)
You claim to use a critical analysis, but mock the use of the word Inquisition.
I used the word to offer another lighthearted analogy of what, from my perspective, you do with the biblical text... mostly because I thought the word was a mistake arising from your dictation software, which automatically capitalized it precisely because of its widespread if not universal association with the violent ecclesial courts of the medieval and early modern periods. Your continued use of it is rather disturbing, actually, and I would recommend you substitute something like "inquire of" or "make an inquiry of", which is all I think you're trying to convey anyway... at least I hope so.
From your denial of Jesus as anything other than a historical teacher, and having interacted with persons from other faiths before, I have suspicions about your background religion as to whether it is Christian or other,
That is part of the reason about asking about your seminary and whether or not it was labeled as christian.
As I've already pointed out to you, there are Jewish scholars affiliated with the seminary and this no more makes them Christians than it makes the seminary itself Jewish... this isn't a difficult concept. Jesus was a first-century Jewish apocalyptic prophet whose teachings have permeated Western thought... he is considered to be a whole lot more than this by others, but I'm not among them. A number of his ethical teachings, as well as his challenge of the Roman collaborators exploiting the people, are amenable with my own outlook here in the present... I have no interest in "doctrine", my Christianity is purely
praxis-driven, to comfort those who mourn and alleviate suffering within my sphere of influence. Whether you extend Christian identity to me or withdraw it is of no concern to me...
Kind regards,
Jonathan