My challenge to Robert Bowman on evolution of theology between Mark and Matthew

Apologist Dr. Robert Bowman indicated to me months ago that he did not intend for his blog to be a place where debates of monograph-level intensity should be held.  I took that as a compliment, and since that time his unwillingness to allow the public to see my responses at his blog is reasonably interpreted to mean that he would rather not deal with my arguments.

Regardless, in a July 2018 blog post Bowman hailed a book which he thought showed high Christology in the gospel that most think was the earliest, Mark:  Jesus the Divine Bridegroom: Michael Tait’s Case for a High Christology in Mark

I posted the following in reply, and since it didn't show up after posting, we'll have to wait and see whether this is because the system is slow, or because Bowman does not want me posting at his blog:

In Mark 6:5, Jesus "could not" do a miracle in his hometown due to the unbelief of the people.  In the parallel in Matthew, the "could not" becomes a "did not" (13:58).

Even inerrantist Christian scholars admit that Matthew here had "toned down" this Markan reference.  Brooks:

"Mark 6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58."

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;The New American Commentary (Page 100).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 While inerrantist can forever trifle about this or that, the fact remains that if Matthew did not believe Mark's wording could reasonably support a low Christology, he would hardly have felt compelled to change "could not" to "did not".  That particular change doesn't look like it was pure coincidence, because by getting rid of the "could not", the phase no longer implies a limitation on Jesus' abilities. 

Regardless, Matthew often "corrects" Mark wherein the disciples or Jesus are portrayed in less than favorable light (e.g., Mark 4:38, this version of the disciples' complaint to Jesus during a storm at sea makes it easy to paint them as skeptical of Jesus' love ["Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?"], while in the parallel in Matthew 8:25, this is toned down to something that offers no support for the claim that the disciples were skeptical of Jesus' love ["Save us, Lord; we are perishing!").

Again, inerrantist Christian scholars admit the version of Christ's words "Where is your faith" in Luke 8:25 constitutes lessening the harshness of the earlier version in Mark 4:40 which said "Do you still have no faith?"---

"Luke 8:25 Where is your faith? Luke’s wording lessens the harshness of Mark’s, “Do you still have no faith?” (4:40)."

Stein, R. H. (2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;The New American Commentary (Page 253).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

And don't forget this doozy: Mark's version of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi is short and clearly lacking in convenient theological baggage:

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"

 28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."

 29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."

 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him. (Mk. 8:27-30 NAU)

But in Matthew's parallel, Peter's confession is more theologically sophisticated, and Matthew includes an entire theological exposition from Jesus on the origin and significance of this Petrine knowledge (the quotes are long to preserve contexts and prevent apologists from pretending that maybe Matthew and Mark are describing similar but different events.  Nope, it's one single event told in two different ways by two different authors):

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

 18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

 (Matt. 16:13-20 NAU)

The point is that Mark's being the earliest gospel and having such signs of low Christology (i.e., the later gospel authors and their desire to change Markan statements in a way that just happens to create the benefit of making them less supportive of a low-Christology) prohibit apologists from pretending that that signs of high Christology they might find in Mark are the only evidence that counts in any discussion of christian theology "evolving" from low to high over the first few  decades after Jesus died.  The circumstances under which Mark was authored, how much or little he depended on Peter, how much or little he depended on other sources, etc, etc, are all topics of hot controversy even within conservative Christian scholarly circles.  Apologists must honestly admit that when Matthew and Luke change, delete or add to their Markan source, it usually results in the benefit of making a lower Christology harder to support.

Therefore, skeptics can and do have reasonable justification to conclude that the later gospel story from Matthew involves some degree of theological evolution from an earlier more primitive form, a form wherein the Markan writer apparently felt more comfortable than today's Trinitarians in making unqualified statements about Jesus' supernatural limitations.

Screenshot:




-------------------
That's all I posted, but I'll add here a table to graphically highlight exactly how Matthew changed Mark's version of Peter's confession to Jesus.  Once you read it, it will be hard to resist the conclusion that

------a) Matthew and Mark are not talking about two similar but different scenes, they are talking about a single scene in two different ways, and
------b) Matthew intended to evolve Mark's lower Christology into something higher by adding things not present in Mark's earlier account, things that the average expected first-century Christian reader of Mark, who didn't know about any other written gospel, would never have thought were implied by Mark's wording:

Mark 8

Matthew 16

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them,  "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."   29 And He continued by questioning them,  "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him,  "You are the Christ."  30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.  31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.  32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered,  "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.  21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.  22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You."

I don't know exactly to what degree Bowman or other apologists will try to milk Michael Tait's case for high Markan Christology, but regardless, they are dreaming if they think any Markan statements that sound like the Nicene Creed erase the above-cited cases where the later gospel authors are clearly dissatisfied with Mark's chosen wording and modify it in ways that not coincidentally make the statements less supportive of low Christology.   It will never happen.

At least not until inerrantist Christian scholars like Brooks, Stein and Blomberg stop admitting that Matthew and Luke often "toned down" Mark's chosen wording.  After all, the later author wanting to "tone down" the earlier statement is precisely the motive we'd expect in a later gospel author who wishes to update gospel theology.  If they didn't think Mark's wording could be reasonably employed to support low-Christology, then tell us, Mr. Apologist...what did motivate Matthew and Luke to "tone down" Mark's language?

Maybe because they thought Mark's gospel was inerrant?  Guess again.