According to numerous critics, differences in these accounts are due (and only due) to crafted theology. In one critic's words:

The creative energy expended by the likes of this critic in coming up with such pie-in-the-sky explanations and motivations for simple differences in storytelling are highly reminiscent, in our view, of the sort of conspiracy proposals we find behind Area 51 and the JFK assassination. It's also perhaps beside the point. As I have shown in another place, Mark when properly understood in light of Semitic anthropology does not mean that someone who came to be baptized was being cleansed of sin; they were making a pledge showing that the conscience (the social conscience of the day) was clear of sin already -- and if Jesus was sinless, then he was certainly eligible. But just allowing for this idea (because it gives us an excellent chance to explore the wooden thinking of critics), let's work through this one piece at a time:

Notice that Mark's version takes us right into the baptism event itself. Jesus goes to Galilee and is immediately baptized by John.

Our critic has ascribed no particular significance to the fact that Mark gives his gospel a running start, so I'll have to limit my comments here of necessity. I'll merely note that the "rush, rush" seems to be part and parcel of Mark's gospel as a whole, so that I'd be highly skeptical of any importance ascribed to it in this particular scenario.

Matthew's author spots a problem in Mark's version of the story and fells that he must make changes to it. How could Jesus have required baptism to repent for the forgiveness of sins? Was he not the son of Adam?

It is here where we find what Glenn Miller has rightly identified as an assumption of "adversarial" relations between the Synoptic authors. Matthew "spots a problem" -- he does? How do we know this? We don't know this -- it is simply assumed that whatever differences Matthew has from Mark are due to deficiencies that Matthew perceived in Mark, not that Matthew necessarily makes any better of the situation. One could make a more detailed criticism of this supposition at this point, but thanks to the nature of the case at hand, there is in fact no need. The "problem" allegedly "spotted" by Matthew is a chimera. Mark contains a problem? If so, what was the exact genesis? The sinlessness of Jesus is an established teaching in the writings of Paul (2 Cor. 5:21), in the book of Hebrews (4:15) and in epistles of Peter (1 Pet. 2:22) and John (1 John 3:5) that are generally recognized as early and authentic even by the most staid critics. The first and third are thought by the critics to have been written some 10-30 years before Mark, and some will allow that Hebrews and 1 John were written that early as well.

Now let's consider this a moment. We have proof (from Paul, John and Peter) that the doctrine that Jesus was sinless was promulgated quite clearly and unequivocally within 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. Few doubt that Mark or anyone else invented the account of Jesus' baptism by John, for the reason that it supposedly causes the very dilemma our critic alludes to, but even otherwise could be badly misinterpreted. Yet, in spite of the fact that Jesus was baptized by Johnny B., somehow Peter, Paul, and the rest came to decide that Jesus was without sin.

So what does this mean? It means that the "dilemma" existed already when Paul wrote his second letter to the Corinthians; it means that it existed when Peter wrote his first epistle, and it means that it existed before either of these men wrote, and that it probably was part and parcel of Christian catechism from the very beginning, for we can be fairly sure that neither one invented the doctrine on the spot, and certainly not independently of one another! And the critics would have us believe that this "dilemma" sat around in the pot for some thirty to fifty years before Matthew (or, as some critics prefer, his alleged "community" for which there is not a shred of literary, archaeological, or sociological evidence; it is only by manufacturing such isolated "communities" that these theses can stand their ground -- see for a rebuttal to this notion, Bauckham's The Gospels for All Christians) slapped his forehead in amazement, recognized the "dilemma," and at once "corrected" Mark's version of events with the little cameo by John the Baptist! Then, after this, we are to suppose that Matthew's "community" went on their merry way, problem solved, while Mark's "community" apparently didn't care about the problem and never did anything about it, at least not in writing, but certainly nothing leaving any evidence. (Or maybe, like Burton Mack's mysterious Q community, they simply vanished off the face of the earth before they could do anything about it. Or maybe the critics want to tell us that Peter and Paul didn't know that Jesus was baptized by Johnny B., and it only came out later. Who knows what they'll think of to save the theory next time around?) Now I ask you this: If Jesus' sinlessness was an essential doctrine of the church from apparently the very beginning, and if the baptism by John was a certifiable fact as well, then how is it supposed by the critics that the church managed to grow and win converts in Judaea and throughout the Empire with a terminally enormous, honking big inconsistency like this one? The answer of course is that ancient people are stupid. The answer is actually that even in Mark the "dilemma" does not exist. Rather than starting at verse 9 as our man does, let's start a little further back at verse 4:

And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark here makes it quite clear that John's baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, as we all agree. Now hop on over to verse 7-8:

And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

In the context of the gospel, this verse -- which appears in some form in all three Synoptics -- is quite clearly supposed to allude to Jesus. Jesus is someone greater than John, more powerful than John, someone so important that John isn't even fit to tie his shoes for him, someone who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, of all things! Who could possibly exercise such control over the Holy Spirit as John exercises over water? Can someone with sin, or any mere mortal, exercise or be given such enormous control over the Holy Spirit? Would God trust such intimate and blanket control of the Holy Spirit to any old shmoe who had a laundry list of sins in his past? Of course not! And so it is that the sinlessness of Jesus, and the fact that he did not come to baptized because he "needed" it, is clear from the very beginning in Mark to anyone who bothers to read what the text is saying. Matthew's little Johnny B. cameo, whether you take it as a genuine recollection of an apostle or a witness, or whether you think he made the whole darned thing up, serves (in line with Matthew's purpose as a "teaching" gospel) as an explicit explanation of what is already clearly implicit in Mark's Gospel: This person to come isn't someone whom John would consider a candidate for baptism. The only way he would be baptized would be for a different purpose -- which is, as is obvious from the divine voiceover that follows in all three versions, because of obedience: The Father wanted Jesus to be baptized, and this would be in line with the idea that Jesus set an example for others to follow (as in the footwashing episode) as leader of the ekklesia. It's as simple as that. And thus these passages offer no support at all for the QM theory; in fact, the differences between Matthew and Mark are quite explicable by common oral or eyewitness tradition emnating from two apostolic sources, Matthew and Peter -- and, by Matthew's predisposition as a teaching tool.

(Moreover, let us remember the connection that Paul's epistles and the Gospels make of Jesus with divine Wisdom, thereby including Jesus in what Bauckham calls the "divine identity." There is simply no way, under this paradigm, that Jesus could have been regarded as anything but sinless! The far more likely reason for John's reaction is that he knew his honor status was below Jesus' -- not because Matthew is "correcting" some problem with Mark's Christology!)

That said, we now move on to the supposed reason for Luke's changes to the story:

Luke also notices the theological dilemma created by Mark but, unlike Matthew, he hesitates to put words in Jesus' mouth.

A moment's observation: As we have noted, the "dilemma" does not exist in Mark at all, but if Luke "hesitates" to put words in Jesus' mouth, can we then assume that Luke accurately records Jesus' words elsewhere and has also "hesitated" to create sayings for him? Is the Jesus Seminar therefore wrong in assigning most of Luke a black or gray (not said/probably not said by Jesus) rating? Or is it only for the convenience of the QM theory that we here apply this principle that Luke is "hesitant" to put words in Jesus' mouth? If Luke was not "hesitant" to do this elsewhere as the Seminar alleges, why was he "hesitant" here? Did he have context-specific psychological problems?

Taking a different approach, Luke attempts to solve the problem by de-emphasizing John's role as baptizer. Instead of Mark's blatant statement that Jesus "was baptized by John," we find in Luke an uncharacteristic passive voice telling us only that "Jesus had been baptized." In this way, Luke preserves the baptism of Jesus in conformity with Mark's version, while simultaneously de-emphasizing John's principle role as baptizer.

Oh, Luke, you sneaky little grammatician, you! Used that passive voice to put Johnny B. down, did you? It is quite obvious from this explanation by Still what ridiculous and absurd lengths these gnat-straining camel-swallowers must go to in order to preserve their thesis. Conspiracy to plot theology is found even in the most minor grammatical subtleties! Luke's use of passive voice, thoroughly explicable as it is on the grounds that it comes after a very extensive recounting of Johnny B's teaching and of his fate at the hands of Herod that separates it from the recounted fact that Johnny B was big-time into baptism, becomes instead some sort of subtle scheme by Luke to "de-emphasize" the fact that Johnny baptized Jesus! Gee, Luke was one smart fella! He decided to "de-emphasize" Johnny B. by providing us with his birth story and an extensive recounting of his teaching that none of the other Synoptics provide us with; all of this attention could easily be countered by a single instance of passive voice tucked into an obscure corner of his presentation! Why don't we recognize the genius of the QM thesis right now?

Luke's presentation does not diminish Johnny B's role in Jesus' baptism in the least. By my own thesis, Luke did indeed have Mark and Matthew (in Aramaic) at his disposal and may have used their material freely; but he also had a lot of good stuff on Johnny B. that he wanted to use (3:10-20) which would help him tell a more complete account of Christian origins, and he decided to make the story smooth by handling matters topically, as many historians of the period did. Hence he goes the whole nine yards and goes as far as the imprisonment by Herod; then, he has to get back to the Jesus story. But since the imprisonment obviously took place after Jesus' actual baptism, the passive voice makes perfect sense. In verse 21, Luke is going back chronologically to a previous event with reference to something (vv. 3-9) before the special Johnny B. interlude in verses 10-20. John is not "de-emphasized" as baptizer; Luke says Jesus had been baptized, and what famous baptizer did Luke just spend a dozen or more verses telling us all about? Who else was there to baptize, Oral Roberts? And let's not forget that Luke alludes to John's baptism of Jesus in Acts 1:22: "Beginning from the baptism of John..." (And, what need has he for Matthew's "Well, duh!" cameo which just makes explicit what is already implicit? At the very least, if Luke knows that Matthew's main purpose is didactic, then he can surely figure out from the lack of the cameo in Mark that it is an unnecessary addition!) The QM proposal which turns this into some sort of grammatical conspiracy to dunk Johnny B. is a ludicrous contraption designed to advance a thesis that is woefully bankrupt in terms of actual evidence. It finds no support in these parallel accounts whatsoever, and it is far more likely that Luke's methods are the result of a more prosaic desire to topically "finish" dealing with Johnny B. (per Cadbury, Goulder, Conzelmann and Fitzmyer).

Luke cuts this part down perhaps because he used up so much room in his Johnny B. cameo. But here is an interesting point indirectly in our favor. The common thesis is that Luke used Mark without Matthew; yet the Greek word used by Luke is the same as Matthew's for heaven opening. Things like this send critics scrambling for Q -- how about something more prosaic? Faced with the same Aramaic word, the more sophisticated Luke and Matthew chose the same Greek word independently (the word used, anoigo, is NEVER found in Mark, but often in Matthew and Luke-Acts. The word Mark does use, schizo, is found in Mark also at 15:38 and is used of the Temple veil tearing, as also Matt and Luke use it. It would seem that Mark chose schizo deliberately to allude to the later tearing of the curtain, which suggests that his tradition is not original, while Matt and Luke's is closer.

Stein [SSG.82] finds a minor point for Marcan priority here, as he notes that whereas Matthew has Jesus come "at once" out of the water, Mark has Jesus "at once" seeing his vision. He argues, "...Matthew has followed the Markan order without being careful of the grammatical consequences in changing Mark's 'baptized' to a participle and his 'having come out' to a verb." He has? How so? This is an oddity, for commentators are regularly on about Mark's poor Greek, while Matthew's is much better; can we really see Matthew not being "careful" like this? Stein's "careless" Matthew not only "carelessly" misplaced the "immediately"; he has also "carelessly" added the water Jesus came "immediately" out of! The real question is, whose "immediately" is likely the original referent? It could apply easily to either someone leaving water or someone seeing a vision, but the context suggests Matthew's placement is more original, since we don't expect people to hang out in the water. One final theological note: some suggest Matt has changed the "You are my Son" to "This is my Son" to make the announcement more "public" and suggest eyewitnesses as opposed to Mark and Luke offering a "private" revelation to a Jesus the critics assume was just a religious nut. However, since Matt keeps "he saw" for the vision of Jesus, and all three say the voice came "out of the heavens" this is more likely a case of critics having paranoia and all three indicating a public event. Indeed, given the honor-shame strictures of the day, a "private" revelation would have been useless to tell about; there would be no point in noting this unless the acknowledgement were public, for in this world one's identity had to be confirmed by others.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

And being-baptized the Jesus went-up at-once from the water. And behold were-opened to-him the heavens and he-saw the Spirit of the God descending as dove and coming upon him. And Voice out of heavens occurred saying This is the Son of-Me the beloved in-whom I-was delighted.