‘Markan priority’ is a prized possession in biblical studies. As an initiation into the field, we are informed that while experts disagree on virtually everything, there is one modern result of which all are assured: the Gospel of Mark was written first.
What is less well known is why this consensus was reached; why, contrary to a long-standing tradition of the Church, it was Mark and not Matthew which came first. There are in fact a number of converging lines of evidence for this conclusion. But in this post, I want to focus on just one: the other Gospels seem to improve Mark’s account.
The logic runs like this: if there are a number of places where the other evangelists can be seen to correct Mark, it is easier to think that they came along later and improved Mark, than that Mark wrote later and made the other texts more embarrassing. After all, why would you redact a text only to make it worse?
A similar principle is central to the study of ancient manuscripts: Lectio difficilior potior (‘the more difficult reading is the stronger’). If we have two manuscripts in which one says something ‘harder’ and the other is ‘cleaner’, it is more sensible to suppose that the difficult one was original, and a later scribe sorted it out.
In a previous post on the empty tomb accounts, we have already seen this principle at work. In Mark’s account, the question is left hanging as to whether Jesus’ body could have been stolen or mistaken for another. Yet the other Gospels clear this up. They assure us that Joseph’s tomb was new and that it was being guarded.
Yet it is not only in these apologetic insertions that we see the evangelists cleaning up Mark’s account. We also see this in subtle changes to his narrative. In this post, I want to look at just three of those changes, covering Christology, eschatology and literary style. Let us begin with the first of these: their changes to Mark’s portrayal of Jesus.
#1 Correcting Mark’s Christology
From the outset of his Gospel, Mark seems to make a number of embarrassing comments about Jesus. To begin with, Mark reports that Jesus was baptised by John, who was baptising ‘for the forgiveness of sins.’ So why did Jesus need to be baptised?
Apparently, the other Gospel writers were rather uncomfortable with this presentation, and they offer clarification or correction of Mark. Matthew explains that Jesus was baptised to ‘fulfil all righteousness’ (3:5); Luke contains the short note that all were being baptised and Jesus was too (3:21); while John removes Jesus’ baptism altogether. If Mark was writing first, these changes are completely comprehendible.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Behind the Gospels to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.