It is worth noting at this point that there are notable inconsistencies in Matthew's gospel account, and that in the gospel of Luke there appears to have been an attempt made to reconcile some of the differences that emerge when comparing Mark's gospel to Matthew's gospel and when considering the inconsistencies in Matthew's gospel. In Matthew's gospel Gentiles are called 'dogs' and they are normally ignored, although if they lower themselves to begging for scraps off the table they can be healed. Redaction criticism reveals however that the Matthew manuscript is composed of sources, and an analysis of these contradictory sources provides complementary evidence for a process of editorial redaction. Gentiles are dogs in the gospel of Matthew. Christ was descended from Gentile dog women, according to the genealogy that opens the book. At the same time there is found in Matthew a parable (the story of the Roman centurion) where Gentiles are healed, and we are then told that while many Gentiles from the 'east and the west' will come to sit down in the Kingdom of Heaven, the Jewish people will be thrown out to 'weep and grind their teeth'. If we assume that the Gentile dog parable, and the doctrine of 'to the Jews only' were original to the Matthew gospel, then the parable of the centurion is out of place, and was another example of sharing of parables accross the gospel accounts. However there is good reason to believe that the Centurion parable may have been original to Matthew's gospel, and that the later verses referring to 'staying away from Gentiles and Samaritans' and 'being sent to Jews only' with Gentiles being called 'dogs' were in fact later revisions of the manuscript by the Jewish community that inherited the manuscript.

      There are notable inconsistencies in doctrine in the Matthew gospel that make analysis of the manuscript particularly difficult. Some of these inconsistent passages could have been later additions by the church fathers to bring the manuscript into line with the evolving demands of Christian dogma (for example you can consider the Trinitarian formula which is an obvious later addition into the manuscript - baptize them in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. (Matthew Chapter 28 verse 19) The church did not finalize the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, having a doctrine of 'the holy two' previous to this, most notably at the conference the church held at Nice, and if such strong pro-Trinity statements were original to the manuscripts, one has to wonder why they took so long to decide the issue. Another example of the same sort of thing is found in the letter to John, where we read 'there are three witness in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' (1 John Chapter 5 verse 8) Manuscript evidence exists to prove that this line was an interpolation, (and it has been removed in more recent translations, although certain reactionary translations still include the trinity dogma). While there is no manuscript evidence that I am aware of to support my assertion that the Trinity dogma appended to Matthew's gospel is also an interpolation, common sense indicates that such is the case).

      So I bring these things to your attention to point out that the Matthew gospel is a complex, internally inconsistent piece of work, and while it is clearly the case that certain inconsistencies and interpolations were the work of the church redactors, a good case could be made that some of these inconsistencies were introduced over time by the community that actually produced the manuscript as they responded to changing circumstances and the debate raged in the Jewish community over the issue of whether or not Joshua was the Jewish messiah, whether or not the Torah required reform or was the infallible law of God, and concerning relationships between Jews and Gentiles.

      One problem that emerges when analyzing the differences between these gospels is that parables were shared between gospels and the works were edited, with inconsistencies in ideology masked by the church fathers who edited the various manuscripts. (There is much manuscript evidence of this editing, much of which dates from the fourth century). These manuscripts also present us with historical inconsistencies. For example we are told that Judas felt so guilty about betraying Christ that he threw his thirty pieces of silver down on the temple floor and then went out and hung himself. (Matthew Chapter 27 verse 5) Then again, we are told that Judas took the money and went out and purchased some land for himself. One day, while he was walking accross the field he purchased, enjoying his ill gotten gain, he tripped and fell, and his guts spilled out, and he died. (Acts Chapter 1 verse 16) Thus they called the field 'blood acre'. We are told by Mark that Joshua never entered Judea until the time of his death at the end of his life, and we are told by Luke, at the beginning of his manuscript that he preached in the synagogues of Judea, and in Matthew's gospel we are told both that he considered Gentiles to be dogs and that he preferred Gentiles and the the Jewish people were to be cast out. The accounts of what happened after the resurrection are also inconsistent. The inconsistencies between the manuscripts are not confined to historical detail. There are also differences in ideology and doctrine. For example, Mark was radical and Luke was opposed to ideological radicalism (even going so far as to nullify the radicalism of Paul). Luke also purged every critique of the Torah found in Mark and Matthew, something that is obvious when a comparison is made between the synoptic gospels.