Development Theories Are All Bunk 1: Cherry Picking Jesus' passion

New Testament scholarship is full of development theories of the Gospels, based on an evolutionary model. Mark is supposedly the most primitive, and from Mark onwards there is supposedly development through Matthew and Luke to John. This supposedly concerns things like Christology (getting gradually higher and higher, culminating in John), alleged anti-Semitism (supposedly greatest in John), and the topic of today's episode--Jesus' alleged "control" of his own death. According to Bart Ehrman, Jesus in Mark is a mere tragic victim. He doesn't know why he has to die. Mark's account is supposedly the most "stark." Jesus suffers greatly, then dies. He is allegedly much nobler and in control of his own death in Luke, with a through line to John in which "everything is part of the plan" and Jesus' death on the cross isn't even agonizing for him. Here is Testify's discussion of why this is wrong: https://isjesusalive.com/death-of-jesus-mark-luke/ Here is Jonathan McLatchie's debunking: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/more-misrepresentations-and-distortions-by-bart-ehrman-a-review-of-jesus-interrupted-part-2/ Next week I'll talk about the way that this alleged "development" in the passion narratives has become a doctrine and has sparked implausible attempts to find other examples of how Jesus is "more in control of his own death" as the Gospels go on and to explain away obvious contrary evidence, like "I thirst" in John.