So which is it? The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven? Mark and Luke plump for God, Matthew prefers Heaven.

It doesn’t matter, you say? They both mean the same thing. Each comes from a different oral tradition.

But which did Jesus use? Did he say Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven? Did he use then interchangeably? If the latter, why don’t the three gospel writers reflect this, Mark and Luke dropping in the occasional ‘Heaven’ just as Matthew drops in Kingdom of God a couple of times. That they don’t would seem to tell us that their respective oral traditions conveyed only the version they themselves prefer. Two separate oral traditions then, which converge neither at their starting point not their end point in the gospels. While this suggests how unreliable oral traditions were and are, it gets us no nearer to knowing which Jesus himself used. One or other of these supposed traditions is wrong. But the discrepancy is not the result of different oral traditions: Matthew changes Kingdom of God to Kingdom of Heaven when he’s copying passages from Mark which are otherwise word for word. He feels free to alter this one term to suit his own theological ends.

Some theologians argue he did this because, being the most Jewish of the gospels writers, he needed to avoid using God’s name in full. Yet he does just that elsewhere in his gospel, including the two places where he refers to the Kingdom of God. Did he just forget to alter these particular references? The fact he’s altering Mark’s text at all should be a cause for alarm; changing the very words of Jesus. What was Matthew thinking? And no, Kingdom of Heaven doesn’t mean something slightly different from Kingdom of God as some desperate apologists argue: the fact it replaces Kingdom of God in passages that are otherwise copied verbatim from Mark eliminates this possibility.

The only explanation is that Matthew’s sect tampered with the word of the Lord just because they felt like it, for reasons now lost to us. Decades later, the writers of the fourth gospel do the same thing when they eliminate all but two of the references to the Kingdom of God. Yes, they reduce the main focus of the synoptic gospels the imminent arrival of the Kingdom, to a mere footnote. The coming Kingdom of God/Heaven just didn’t suit their agenda so they side-lined it.

The gospel writers felt free to alter, amend, improve, change and invent Jesus script as they saw fit. The evidence that they did so is right there in front of our eyes. Each sect made up and used (or didn’t) the term they themselves thought best described the coming of God’s rule on Earth. And the practice extends far beyond tampering with the Kingdom’s title and importance. And if Matthew, Luke and John did it, particularly the inventing part of their creations, them why not Mark too? Just because his gospel was the earliest doesn’t mean it’s any more an accurate representation of Jesus than the later ones. It doesn’t mean Mark didn’t invent his material wholesale either. If his successors are anything to go by, it’s likely that that’s exactly what he did.

Let me make another suggestion. The sect which gave rise to Mark’s gospel, later copied by a different sect from which Luke’s gospel arose, devised the term the Kingdom of God. The sect that produced Matthew’s gospels preferred to call it the Kingdom of Heaven for reasons best known to themselves.

No conflicting oral traditions required. No earthbound Jesus either.