So, as I understand, Matthew is aimed more at the Israelite people and Luke more toward gentiles. Was the mountain imagery as significant to non-Israelites as it would have been with Sinai, Hermon, etc being part of the lore of the Israelites? Was Matthew framing it that was as a call back to the central story of Sinai, where Luke’s audience wouldn't have placed the same significance on that theme? Or was the mountain theme pervasive in that region and era?
Hi Christine! Great questions! From what I’ve learned, mountains were significant in various ancient near eastern cultures, the Israelites being among many.
So, I think even Gentile audiences would’ve picked up on significant moments in the Jesus story where he’s on a mountain—like the transfiguration story in Luke 9 as an example.
That said, I do think the Matthew account is drawing on the Sinai scenes! Especially since Jesus teaches on the mountain after going through his wilderness journey, like the Israelites.
I guess my train of thought goes to the “mountain" imagery in Matthew juxtaposed with the “level place” in Luke, taking their target audiences into account.
Maybe that’s what I’m trying to mentally parse: you laid out some really interesting similarities between the two accounts, and then their contrasts. I am thinking through how the differences matter (and maybe getting too granular with regards to “plain” vs “mountain”) but have lately been so struck by how the context reveals so much of scripture, I don’t want to miss those details.
Bro this is fire stuff 🔥🙌
I appreciate you reading bro!
Great stuff Hakeem!
Thank you my brother, also I just saw your email!
So, as I understand, Matthew is aimed more at the Israelite people and Luke more toward gentiles. Was the mountain imagery as significant to non-Israelites as it would have been with Sinai, Hermon, etc being part of the lore of the Israelites? Was Matthew framing it that was as a call back to the central story of Sinai, where Luke’s audience wouldn't have placed the same significance on that theme? Or was the mountain theme pervasive in that region and era?
Hi Christine! Great questions! From what I’ve learned, mountains were significant in various ancient near eastern cultures, the Israelites being among many.
So, I think even Gentile audiences would’ve picked up on significant moments in the Jesus story where he’s on a mountain—like the transfiguration story in Luke 9 as an example.
That said, I do think the Matthew account is drawing on the Sinai scenes! Especially since Jesus teaches on the mountain after going through his wilderness journey, like the Israelites.
Any further thoughts?
I guess my train of thought goes to the “mountain" imagery in Matthew juxtaposed with the “level place” in Luke, taking their target audiences into account.
Maybe that’s what I’m trying to mentally parse: you laid out some really interesting similarities between the two accounts, and then their contrasts. I am thinking through how the differences matter (and maybe getting too granular with regards to “plain” vs “mountain”) but have lately been so struck by how the context reveals so much of scripture, I don’t want to miss those details.
Ah, I gotcha now! What you're getting at makes me wanna look further into potential significant moments on "plains."
fyeeeeee
🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾 my brother
This is AWESOME