The wafers and the plonk.

[Dicky Underpants]

True, it's not a big difference, but it indicates that Matthew is the original account. Matthew uses exactly the same pattern for both the bread and the wine:

Jesus
Took bread
Blessed and broke it
Gave it to the disciples
Said, "take, eat, this is my body"

Took the cup
Gave thanks
Gave it to them
Said, "drink this all of you, this is my blood..."

Mark however, follows the same pattern but breaks it by omitting '...eat...drink' and inserting 'and they all drank of it', with Jesus explaining what the cup represents after they have drunk from it.

If you had two versions of a rhyme, and in one version the pattern was broken, you would assume the intact pattern belongs to the original version.

I guess this could be relevant to the thread in the sense that we see in Matthew what is probably a liturgical form of the account, being therefore a more accurate representation than Mark's of how the Eucharist was originally practised.

Or that the later writer thought the original versifier was not all that good, and needed to be improved upon.

[jeremyp]

...could ... could ...

The evidence therefore suggests that this passage is originally from Matthew.

No. "could" is not what you should be asking. This is not how proper scholarship works. You do nt say "well it could be this, and that accords with my faith, therefore it is true". You have to think about what is probable. You have to do it whilst putting aside your preferred outcome and you have to take into account all the evidence, not just the bits that you think you are ok with.

[Spud]

No. "could" is not what you should be asking. This is not how proper scholarship works.

But we legitimately ask "could" when hypothesizing.

You do nt say "well it could be this, and that accords with my faith, therefore it is true". You have to think about what is probable. You have to do it whilst putting aside your preferred outcome and you have to take into account all the evidence, not just the bits that you think you are ok with.

This is true. Here is my reasoning:

Luke 22:19-20 is similar to Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29. Of these three though, only Matthew has the balance that I showed in #19, where the structure is exactly the same for the cup as it is for the bread. Mark and Luke have this structure but it is broken both in Mark, as I showed, and also in Luke where it says "And likewise the cup after they had eaten" instead of "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them".

All are logical when read in isolation, which makes it harder to deduce which is the original. Luke is reworded, eg "the new covenant in my blood". Given the close correspondence between Matthew and Mark, it is likely that one copied the other. This means that either Mark changed "drink of it, all of you" to "and they all drank of it"; or Matthew changed "and they all drank of it" to "drink of it, all of you".

In several instances in Matthew, certain actions are implied from direct speech, where Mark emphasizes them in his narrative (in this passage, the action implied by Matthew is that the disciples drank).

Another example is Matthew 9:10-11,

And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Compare with Mark 2:15-16,

And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

According to the 'editorial fatigue' theory, Mark has read in Matthew 9:11 the Scribes' question to Jesus. He then makes explicit in his narrative what is implicit in Matthew  (they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors). Then he continues copying their question to Jesus, thereby repeating the phrase "eating with tax collectors and sinners".

We can deduce from this and other examples that Mark likes to turn direct speech into narrative. See also Mark 2:18 (cf Mt 9:14), Mark 7:2 (cf Mt 15:1), Mark 14:35 (cf Mt 26:39).

Apparently then, it is probable that Mark 14:23 is another case of Mark turning direct speech into narrative, and as a result breaking the balance that is seen in Matthew 26:26-28 (see #19).

[jeremyp]

But we legitimately ask "could" when hypothesizing.

But, if you want to arrive at an evidence based answer, you have to think of everything (within reason) that could be true and ask what is probable.

This is true. Here is my reasoning:

Luke 22:19-20 is similar to Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29. Of these three though, only Matthew has the balance that I showed in #19, where the structure is exactly the same for the cup as it is for the bread. Mark and Luke have this structure but it is broken both in Mark, as I showed, and also in Luke where it says "And likewise the cup after they had eaten" instead of "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them".

All are logical when read in isolation, which makes it harder to deduce which is the original. Luke is reworded, eg "the new covenant in my blood". Given the close correspondence between Matthew and Mark, it is likely that one copied the other. This means that either Mark changed "drink of it, all of you" to "and they all drank of it"; or Matthew changed "and they all drank of it" to "drink of it, all of you".

In several instances in Matthew, certain actions are implied from direct speech, where Mark emphasizes them in his narrative (in this passage, the action implied by Matthew is that the disciples drank).

Another example is Matthew 9:10-11,

And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Compare with Mark 2:15-16,

And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

According to the 'editorial fatigue' theory, Mark has read in Matthew 9:11 the Scribes' question to Jesus. He then makes explicit in his narrative what is implicit in Matthew  (they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors). Then he continues copying their question to Jesus, thereby repeating the phrase "eating with tax collectors and sinners".

We can deduce from this and other examples that Mark likes to turn direct speech into narrative. See also Mark 2:18 (cf Mt 9:14), Mark 7:2 (cf Mt 15:1), Mark 14:35 (cf Mt 26:39).

Apparently then, it is probable that Mark 14:23 is another case of Mark turning direct speech into narrative, and as a result breaking the balance that is seen in Matthew 26:26-28 (see #19).

Here you are cherry picking whilst ignoring other more important evidence.

[Sassy]

But, if you want to arrive at an evidence based answer, you have to think of everything (within reason) that could be true and ask what is probable.

Here you are cherry picking whilst ignoring other more important evidence.

I believe some thought, Peter wrote the book of Mark.  The first three books of the New Testament are the Synoptic Gospels.
The pretty much say the same. But the gospel of John gives more details about the words and life of Christ.
The evidence must come from the experience and reasoning that what the bible says is true and that the person in Christ and the New Covenant must be born of Spirit and Truth,
So what is this people who are taught by Gods Spirit not man?

To know the truth of the bible you must have faith and be able to test the truth others speak.

Now people are covering the return of Christ as a man in human flesh. But Christ is resurrected he will never die again so cannot return as human flesh but resurrected redeemed flesh having died in the place of man but having not sinned so death could not hold him, Christ like God without sin. But Christ himself puts himself back under God when all things done.
I wish sometimes you could understand from my side that the LORD has to open your mind and heart to understand.  Christ, will return one day but we are here to show that it is always your choice on whether you learn the truth as it was meant to be received. Only one God and there is one son of God, Christ and there is the Holy Spirit. What happens if you die without first believing?
Just make sure you call out to God and Jesus to save you.......Would love you to be saved.