text: I subscribe to history being the moment of truth. In modernity, the previous president of the US used an expression of being on the wrong or right side of history. To be on the wrong or the right side of a reality, one needs to reshape the perception of the reality, but by doing so the perception becomes the lie. The Sermon on the Mount may be a lie for you shaped by the gospel authors, but you can’t prove that it is – you can only assert it. My money is on the printed edition concurrent with the event period derived from the oral tradition, not on some modern academic backslapping scholarly consensus promoted as widely accepted. Academics would have us believe the gospels were bold enough to make stuff up because God wasn’t believable enough all by himself. Can you just imagine someone asserting that a biblical author was an embellisher? I must wonder if those biblical scholars are the ones who washed out from political science. 
  
  The Archbold citation was to confirm your perspective.