Matthew sounds surely more anti-marcionite in virtue of the simple presence of the birth in the incipit. Really, the birth is so much anti-marcionite by definition, that I would avoid any discussion involving Matthew. My focus is only about Mark versus Marcion.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:03 pm - conclusion not coherent
But if you're right, then Matthew should be even more embarrassed than Mark. But as we know, that was not the case.
do you agree with me that the fact that John the Baptist didn't see the dove in Mark is part of the messianic misunderstanding (Mark would like to justify why the Baptist didn't recognize soon Jesus as the Christ)?Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:03 pm As I have said, I am not convinced that the baptism was a historical fact as these HJ-scholars have claimed, but their reasoning is of course a compelling argument for Markan priority.
We have already discussed in another thread about the Baptist, and I was rather embarrassed by your emphasis on the presence of Luke 20:3-8 in Marcion, as presumed evidence of an unusual (=anti-marcionite) alliance between Jesus and John against the common enemy (=pharisees). I am expecting the Vinzent's book for a solution of that little dilemma. (As you know, my argument is that in Mark there are still presumed traces of the marcionite rivarly between Jesus and John: apart the baptism, they are always distant one from the other, and the pharisees would like surely more the John's disciples than the Jesus's disciples).