So this gnostic attack against the Jewish-Christians was used as source by 'Mark' (redactor), who adds
as anti-Gnostic corrective the clear stress on the reality of Jesus's provenance from Nazaret.
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.
(Mark 6:4-6)
In this way it is made clear that Jesus is
really the
Jewish Christ, since he is
really from Nazaret.
Not coincidentially, in Luke (the catholic redaction of
Mcn), we have the reference to the
presumed Jewihness of Jesus:
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
(4:22)
...but we don't have in the sequel a confirmation that Jesus was really from Nazaret.
In Matthew 13:53-58 the Gnostic irony is even more evident and striking:
53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
The gnostic irony is: just because Jesus is
not the demiurge, he could
'get this wisdom and these mighty works' .
Note that the reading 'carpenter's son' is probably a later reading than the markan 'carpenter': the
demiurge was the bastard son of Sophia ('Mary'), and not the his Christ.
Now, 'Joseph' was only one of the brothers of the carpenter, in the original source. He became the name of the father of the carpenter
only in Luke, who had already introduced (knowing it from Matthew), the story of the putative father of Jesus named Joseph.
So, in definitive, I think that the (hypothetical) original marcionite reading was the following:
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” they asked.