Second, examining Luke’s plot, I observed how Isaiah has an important role in Luke’s Promise-Fulfillment framework. Luke highlights how Jesus’s life and ministry fulfills Isaiah’s exodus motif (often known as Isaiah’s new exodus). If Luke had access to Matthew, it is surprising how Luke reduces the space that Isaiah gains in Matthew’s Gospel. Luke only incorporates a small number of direct citations from Isaiah (fewer than Matthew). Even more surprising is the omissions of some direct mentions of Isaiah’s name; Matthew mentions Isaiah’s name in: 3:3, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:14: 15:7. It makes more sense to suppose that Matthew’s adaptation of Isaiah was influenced by Luke, rather than the other way around.
https://www.alangarrow.com/blog/chakrit ... OpQcqo7Drk
(my bold)
The explicit mention of Isaiah is fully justified by an anti-marcionite reaction.
From the other hand, how can the implicit mention of Isaiah be evidence of anti-demiurgism?
Marcion marks probably the passage from an innocent use of the midrash (by writers preceding Marcion) to an interested use of the midrash (by anti-marcionite writers, in primis Matthew).