In his article published on Blogging Theology earlier today Denis attempted to refute some of the reasons scholars have for seeing Christological development in the gospels. I will focus on a few points by way of rebuttal. I assume the standard solution to the synoptic problem, namely that Matthew and Luke used Mark (and other sources) in the writing of their respective gospels. For this article I focus on how Matthew used Mark. (For introductions to the Synoptic Problem see here).
Examples of how Matthew uses Mark.
According to the dominant sources theories, Matthew preserves about 90% of the stories and passages found in Mark’s Gospel, but he edits/changes this material according to his purposes. Studying these editorial changes is the job of ‘redaction critics’ (the discipline is called redaction criticism).
Here are some examples of Matthew’s alteration of Mark. I have listed them in order of significance: minor…
View original post 859 more words