John Dominic Crossan
Crossan treats this saying [Historical Jesus] (270-74) as part of a longer discussion of the divine commonwealth as a "Kingdom of Nobodies." In classic style, Crossan begins:
It is hard to imagine a saying more initially radical ... and thereafter more safely relegated to the confines of normalcy if not banality.
Crossan draws on Aristophanes, Plutus, as the classic text for the distinction between Poverty (penian) and Beggary (ptocheias). The goddess Penia rejects the blurring of distinction between poverty and beggary, insisting:
But the life I allot to my people is not,
nor shall be, so full of distresses.[cited in Historical Jesus, 271]
'Tis the beggar (ptochou) alone who has nought of his own,
nor even an obol possesses.
My poor (penetos) man, 'tis true, has to scrape and to screw
and his work he must never be slack in;
There'll be no superfluity found in his cot;
but then there will nothing be lacking.
Aristophanes might create a goddess known as Poverty, the divine personification of the deserving and hard-working poor, and so quite properly opposed to the leisured laziness of the idle rich, but he created no goddess known as Beggary, gave no apotheosis to Destitution. That is, however, exactly what Jesus did. He spoke, in shocking paradox, not about a Kingdom of the Poor but about a Kingdom of the Destitute. ... The beatitude of Jesus declared blessed, then, not the poor but the destitute, not poverty but beggary. ... Jesus spoke of a Kingdom not of the Peasant or Artisan classes, but of the Unclean, Degraded, and Expendable classes.
I judge that Jesus said, speaking no doubt from his own experience, something like "Blessed are the abused and rejected," and the early communities said, speaking from their own increasingly dangerous situations, "Blessed are the persecuted." As John Kloppenborg put it, having paralleled that beatitude's acceptance of social abuse with similar Cynic experiences, "those who proclaim, 'Blessed are the poor' will find themselves hated and reviled."
International Q Project
[IQP] reconstructs the original Q saying as follows:
And [rais]ing his [eyes to] his disciples he said,
"Blessed are <you> poor, for God's reign is for you."
The views of the Seminar may be represented as follows:
- Thom 54
- Thom 54
- Luke 6:20
- Luke 6:20b
- Matt 5:3
- Matt 5:3
- PolPhil 2:3b
(On some occasions a text was reconsidered at more than one session of the Seminar, sometimes resulting in a different color grading.)
The Fellows of the Seminar were virtually unanimous in their view that Jesus is the author of the first three congratulations. They were also convinced that the Lukan versions of those addressed to the poor, the weeping, and the hungry are more original.
In discussing Luke's version of this saying, and the Beatitudes in general, Lüdemann [Jesus] (297) concludes:
The earliest stratum of the beatitudes goes back to Jesus. This judgment is based on two observations: (a) the beatitudes form a much longer series in Matthew and there consist of ten individual blessings (Matt. 5.3-12); here we can already note processes of growth within the tradition (cf. Matt 5.7-9). (b) Luke 6.22/Matt 5.11-12 (cf. Thomas 68.1) are focused on the situation of the post-Easter community and are clearly of later origin.
[After a paragraph on the "spiritualization of the beatitudes in Matthew" (but note the contrasting view by Lachs above) he continues:]
Around the historical nucleus we have two rings of expansions in Q (vv. 22-23) and the expansion by Luke himself (vv. 24-26), neither of which, like the introduction (v. 20), has any claim to historicity. By contrast the criteria of growth, offensiveness and difference support the historicity of vv. 20b-21.
John P. Meier
Meier argues for the dependence of Thom 54 on Matthew and Luke [Marginal Jew] (II,333). This is one element of his extended treatment of the beatitudes (pp. 317-336).
Meier's use of possible linguistic parallels from Qumran is a classic example of the maximalist use of scanty evidence. Compare his "However, it must be noted that 'poor in spirit' or a close equivalent is found more than once at Qumran." (p. 321) with the more measured tone of the details at n. 121 on p.380.
On balance, Meier concurs that the Lukan form of this saying is most likely closer to the original forms of the tradition than Matthew's list with its "tendency to spiritualize, moralize, and generalize the beatitudes."