While comparing the different passages between the two Gospels, there are very few differences in the Jesus’ death stories. Matthew uses more sophisticated language than Mark which makes the story seem more credible than Marks. In verses 16:1-8 of Mark and 28:1-15 Matthew with the tomb story again Matthew uses greater langue than Mark again making him more credible and added more details than Mark did, once again giving him more credibility. Then again with Matthew adding the resurrection story to make him more credible than Mark. Matthew adding the resurrection just gave the gospel more depth and detail over Mark.

With the comparisons in mind, I feel that all Matthew was doing with his additions and changes was making himself a more credible source than Mark. Not saying that Mark wasn’t just as credible since the stories are virtually the same, but adding on the language and more details make Matthew’s story more believable than Mark’s. Also, it was important for the disciples to write these gospels so they can pass down the stories to others by the written word over the word of mouth.