Poly

I’ve never read any scholarly treatments of why they differ, but I noticed the differences several years ago and decided I like Luke’s version much better. That’s the version I pray in private.

I find Matthew’s version too theological and preachy (even without the doxology that is not part of the earliest mss.) I get really annoyed when someone is praying in public and they start telling God all the things they want to make sure the human listeners hear, while they have the floor. Maybe that’s why Jesus discouraged public prayer. You wind up talking to the people around you rather than to God (and they can’t even debate you because you’re “not talking to them”).

I can’t imagine why Luke would omit the assertion that the Father is in heaven, if that was what he found in Q. I think I recall that Matthew alone uses the term Kingdom of Heaven, while Mark & Luke say Kingdom of God. Maybe the heavenly realm was a particular obsession of Matthew’s. I’m just thinking with my typing fingers.

We could also ask about or observe the primary difference between Matthew and the other gospel accounts to be the depth and content of the Sermon on the Mount.  If Matthew has some roots to the apostles of Jesus, then it would explain the depth to the OT passages I’ve noted, and those noted by Andrew Roth in the study notes of the Aramaic English New Testament.  Jesus was teaching the unity of the Torah, Psalms and Prophets – the manner of life anyone who loves God will seek to observe – if he is teaching the truth of God in a way never done by any other prophet.  Note the order of his teachings in Matthew to be based on living by every word of God – not some “new” doctrine – but clearing away the dirt of man made teachings to hear what God desires of men who love Him.

There are so many variants in both Mark and Luke that it caused me to disbelieve them, as the Teachings in Matthew make too much sense and are founded on living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Knowing how prone Rome and Paul disciples were to lie and alter Scripture will prove where they were altered – note the Hebrew Scripture Jewish translations, then double check by the DSS translation – it’s not difficult to discern the changes (such as the teaching on divorce) were altered in a few locations to lead people from the actual truth of God.  Jesus neither added to His word, nor took away from it – otherwise he must have been proven to be a false prophet (Deut. 4, 12, 13,18) and rejected – but this was not the charge against Jesus by any record I’ve seen to date.