Sanders List
Mark 1:11 ~ Lk 3:22
With a Note on Mk 1:2-3 ~ Lk 3:4-6

Proposal

Weiss Älteste 133: Codex Bezae has the original reading in Lk ("Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"), and our Lk 3:22 depends on Q. Mark here also depends on Q, but gives it in a weakened form. [That is, Mark less accurately reflects Q].

Argument

If the question is merely one of accuracy in copying from a prior document, then the relative age of Mark and Luke is not involved. The point as put by Weiss thus does not, strictly speaking, bear on Markan Priority. He also departs from the most convincing definition of Q (material common to Mt and Lk but absent in Mk), and he ignores the Matthean parallel. We reinclude the Matthean parallel, and ask: of the three versions, which one may be thought to be the oldest?

Content. Here are the three contrasting passages:

Readings. The extra kai in Bezae at Lk 3:21 (we may note in passing) is mere dittography. The point of significance is that Bezae, against nearly all other witnesses, reads as given above in Lk 3:22, conforming more closely to Psa 2:7.

It may be noted that the Gospel of the Ebionites (quoted by Epiphanius, Ad Haer 30/13:7-8) reads as follows: "And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into him. And a voice from Heaven said, Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." And again, "Today I have begotten thee."

The significant point is that Bezae reads "this day have I begotten thee," which is closer than our canonical Luke to the text of Psalm 2. Which is earlier, the inaccurate quotation, or the accurate one? Modern scholars may find it incomprehensible or unacceptable that Jesus, or the earliest Evangelist, got the quotes wrong. But if they got them right, why did the later copyists depart from that right reading? That question cannot convincingly be answered. The correct application of the Extended Tischendorf rule is that it is easier to imagine the pedantic later Gospels (or as here, the pedantic later copyists) putting inaccuracies right, than to imagine them committing such inaccuracies, and committing them, moreover, with the correct text right in front of them. Vaticanus is therefore to be preferred to Bezae as the earlier form; it is easy to see how that incorrect earlier form led to the later form.

Mk 1:2-3 ~ Lk 3:4-6. It is not only later copyists, but also later Evangelists, who intrude into the previous text in the interest of pedantic fidelity to the Scriptures. Thus, Mark 1:2-3 wrongly identifies as from Isaiah a quote which is a mixture of Malachi and Isaiah. Luke 3:4-6 excises the Malachi part, and runs the Isaiah part for a few lines more, just to show who is boss here. There are many examples of this type of change in Luke, and we should remember that Luke's idea of Jesus includes the scene (Lk 2:46-47) where Jesus amazes the learned scribes in the Temple with his understanding of Scripture, and also presumably with his accurate knowledge of Scripture in the first place. The implied directionality here is thus Mk > Lk.

Content. This late text variant being thus dealt with, we may next consider an earlier variant: the difference between Mk and Lk as they stand. These variants do raise the question of Synoptic priority:

The Role of John the Baptist. In Mark, the vision follows directly on John's baptism of Jesus, and can thus be read as a consequence of the baptism: John consecrates Jesus. Luke, by contrast, makes the vision follow Jesus's prayer; that is, it is a result of Jesus's action rather than John's. It is characteristic of Luke to minimize the role of John the Baptist, and this passage is consistent with that general tendency. Luke in this aspect also is a revision of Mark, and is thus later than Mark.

The Holy Spirit. Mark has simply the Spirit; Luke makes this the Holy Spirit, a later theological idea. Luke in general mentions the Holy Spirit far more often than does Mark (13x compared to 4x, and we add that the Markan 4x are in late textual strata of Mark). Luke is theologically later; he has further developed a concept which is only rudimentary in Mark.

Narrative Considerations . Mark's version can be read as an event interior to Jesus; how do we know that it really happened? (For example, no disciples had yet been chosen, to transmit Jesus's own account to posterity). Luke gets around this by physicalizing the dove: it was not an apparation, but an object, which everyone present could have seen. Luke's account is evidentially firmer, and was probably designed to be so. It is typical of Luke to supply motivations and information scenarios for events which lack them in Mark. The Lukan version is thus (from a certain point of view) narratively improved, and so probably later.

All three major differences point to Luke as the later and more advanced version, hence Mk > Lk.

Conclusion

Markan Priority is Upheld.

Back to Sanders Index Page

25 Sept 2005 / Contact The Project / Exit to Biblica Page