Whether Biblical literalism is valid seems unanswerable, however, from this type of historical analysis, which a literalist would reject. A person who sees the Gospels solely as documents of faith, written by Jesus' actual disciples at relatively the same time period despite their different perspectives, versions of events, and literary motifs, would naturally try to reconcile the two different versions of Jesus of Matthew and Mark and suggest that they made up the 'same' person of the same whole. One Jesus demands care on the part of His followers, the other demands trust, but both are important values for a Christian. A literalist would be reading for spiritual sustenance, a Biblical historian would...

Neither perspective of this example found in both Gospels is inherently correct; rather the historian and the literalist's interpretations both validly reflect the different ways the Bible can be used. Additionally, it should be noted that in both passages, Jesus himself is using a metaphor to illustrate a truth to his followers, thus the notion of literal truth itself would be viewed differently, very likely, by the author of the document as well as by a historian vs. A modern, literal…