Robert said

See our earlier discussion ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for why the positve version of this saying needs to be weighed against the negative version in Q. For those who follow the two-source theory, the negative version cannot simply be attributed Matthew’s redaction of Mark. Most scholars think Q is older than Mark and typically preserves older versions than Mark.   

Or we can come to more satisfying conclusion that Mark and Luke are editing Matthew.

Mark 9:37-40 is matched by Luke 9:48-50, however Mark’s next verse is missing from Luke, Mark 9:41.

The equivalent place in Matthew is similar, Matthew 18:5, however its missing “and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me”.

This line is found in Matthew Chapter 10, Matthew 10:40-42, which “coincidentally” contains Mark’s last verse missing from Luke.

That Mark and Luke are re-positioning single lines from Matthew’s original chapter 10 should be obvious.

For Mark to be original would require Matthew taking a block of his text, editing the first verse but leaving its position unaltered, simultaneously taking this block to a new chapter, removing and replacing just the middle verses of the block in a fashion which renders the whole far more readable and placed in far more satisfying context and Luke by pure coincidence deciding to delete just the last verse of Mark’s block.

brenmcg said

Or we can come to more satisfying conclusion that Mark and Luke are editing Matthew.

Mark 9:37-40 is matched by Luke 9:48-50, however Mark’s next verse is missing from Luke, Mark 9:41.

The equivalent place in Matthew is similar, Matthew 18:5, however its missing “and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me”.

This line is found in Matthew Chapter 10, Matthew 10:40-42, which “coincidentally” contains Mark’s last verse missing from Luke.

That Mark and Luke are re-positioning single lines from Matthew’s original chapter 10 should be obvious.

For Mark to be original would require Matthew taking a block of his text, editing the first verse but leaving its position unaltered, simultaneously taking this block to a new chapter, removing and replacing just the middle verses of the block in a fashion which renders the whole far more readable and placed in far more satisfying context and Luke by pure coincidence deciding to delete just the last verse of Mark’s block.  

Now see what you’ve done, Robert?

I know, he’s been quiet a while, but if anything was going to wake him…..

Robert said

godspell said

But it’s two different stories, that happen to feature similar phrases, referring to different things.

Not sure I see the relevance.  Also, what is your basis for what most scholars believe about this?  There’s a poll?    

You ** you do not have permission to see this link ** held the position that it is unlikely that Jesus would have made both statements, the one negative and the other positive:

“Is it likely that Jesus would say both things? No.” 

Thus if you still hold only one to be authentic, it would be worthwhile to develop a convincing argument for why one is authentic and/or the other is not.

No need for a poll. I know what most scholars believe about this particular question because it is very common knowledge for anyone who has formally studied this material.   

We can’t prove any of the statements presented here are authentic.  Nor was anyone else on this thread subjected to this interrogation–do you think it 100% certain any of the other phrases mentioned here are precise quotes?  And do you think you’re the final arbiter?  

Also, I didn’t state that the other quote wasn’t authentic.  I didn’t mention it.  I can’t have an opinion?  You have lots.  🙂

This thread was about sayings we believe to be original.  The saying, and the story that attaches to it, strike me as being the kind of thing Jesus would say–nor do I think there’s any chance Mark invented it.  

As to the other statement being from Q, I don’t see how anyone could know that.  (I believe Q existed, but I don’t think it was the only other source other than Mark that Matthew and Luke had).  Luke uses both sayings (always trying to be all things to all men).  It’s entirely possible Jesus used both, but I wasn’t taking a position there.  So don’t argue with positions I wasn’t pushing.  This isn’t that kind of thread.  

It’s fine that you like to argue–obviously I do as well–but again, you seem to be taking a position of authority that your credentials don’t justify.  Our previous discussion was a while ago, and I don’t feel like looking it up.  I’m arguing with other people, elsewhere, on different subjects.  Sometimes even in actual reality.  🙂