I'm copying and posting from by website I'm too new to link to 
The gospels, even though they are copying material from one another, contradict each other on many points. The “Sermon on the Mount” is a good example of this in that right out of the gate we have a contradiction in the story which leads to many between the versions of the sermon.
The Sermon on the Mount is not contained in Mark, the first gospel written, or in John, probably the last. The only gospels we have to compare side by side are Mathew and Luke.
There are two theories that serious academics consider to explain the common material between the two authors. The most commonly accepted is the Q hypothesis. That is the hypothesis that Mathew and Luke both copy from Mark and INDEPENDENTLY copy from a lost source now called Q (short for the German “Quelle” or “Source.) Gotta love the German contribution to theology and biblical studies.
The second hypothesis that should be taken into account is that the material between the “Mathean” and “Lukan” narratives are similar because one is copying from the other just as they are both copying from Mark. Proponents of this view usually think it is Luke that is copying from Mathew.
We need not indulge too many specifics in the debate on the nature of the literary relationship. It is clear that there is a literary relationship between the accounts.
And yet, from the outset, they contradict each other on what sort of geography Jesus preached his epic sermon. Mathew says it was on a mount, Luke says it was in a plain. (Mathew 5:1-2 and Luke 6:17-20.)
We can reconstruct why whoever wrote the gospel we call Mathew would place Jesus on a mount. Conservative or liberal, scholars agree that Mathew is the most Jewish gospel. Placing Jesus on this mount makes Jesus look like Moses delivering the law from a mount. The message is clear: Jesus is now what Moses was then.
Now, there are a few possibilities on why they contradict each other on this point.
The Q material could have originally said “plain” and Mathew is Judaizing the text.
The Q material could have originally said “mount” and Luke is de-Judaizing the text.
Luke is copying Mathew and de-judaizing the text.
Mathew is copying Luke and is de-judaizing the text.
The Q material contains sayings but does not ascribe a location so the authors make one up.
There may be more, but these are the main ones that come to me this moment, with some of course being more likely than others. Any way you slice it, what people commonly refer to as the “Sermon on the Mount” should be the “Sermon on the ?”
The gospels, even though they are copying material from one another, contradict each other on many points. The “Sermon on the Mount” is a good example of this in that right out of the gate we have a contradiction in the story which leads to many between the versions of the sermon.
The Sermon on the Mount is not contained in Mark, the first gospel written, or in John, probably the last. The only gospels we have to compare side by side are Mathew and Luke.
There are two theories that serious academics consider to explain the common material between the two authors. The most commonly accepted is the Q hypothesis. That is the hypothesis that Mathew and Luke both copy from Mark and INDEPENDENTLY copy from a lost source now called Q (short for the German “Quelle” or “Source.) Gotta love the German contribution to theology and biblical studies.
The second hypothesis that should be taken into account is that the material between the “Mathean” and “Lukan” narratives are similar because one is copying from the other just as they are both copying from Mark. Proponents of this view usually think it is Luke that is copying from Mathew.
We need not indulge too many specifics in the debate on the nature of the literary relationship. It is clear that there is a literary relationship between the accounts.
And yet, from the outset, they contradict each other on what sort of geography Jesus preached his epic sermon. Mathew says it was on a mount, Luke says it was in a plain. (Mathew 5:1-2 and Luke 6:17-20.)
We can reconstruct why whoever wrote the gospel we call Mathew would place Jesus on a mount. Conservative or liberal, scholars agree that Mathew is the most Jewish gospel. Placing Jesus on this mount makes Jesus look like Moses delivering the law from a mount. The message is clear: Jesus is now what Moses was then.
Now, there are a few possibilities on why they contradict each other on this point.
The Q material could have originally said “plain” and Mathew is Judaizing the text.
The Q material could have originally said “mount” and Luke is de-Judaizing the text.
Luke is copying Mathew and de-judaizing the text.
Mathew is copying Luke and is de-judaizing the text.
The Q material contains sayings but does not ascribe a location so the authors make one up.
There may be more, but these are the main ones that come to me this moment, with some of course being more likely than others. Any way you slice it, what people commonly refer to as the “Sermon on the Mount” should be the “Sermon on the ?”
