How much close was the Markan prioritist Bruno Bauer to accept the *Ev's priority?

[Giuseppe]

Surely in this point:

No one in the community knew when or how the Lord had come to the conviction of his calling, or how he had even come to this certainty of his destiny. But as gradually, alongside the belief in the sacrificial death and resurrection of the Redeemer, interest in his life story emerged, the rounding out of the historical view demanded that the beginning of salvation be demonstrated, i.e. the moment when the Lord emerged from obscurity and embarked on his mission. But where was this starting point? No one knew, or rather everyone: was it not, according to the law clearly read in the Old Testament, the moment when Jesus, like the prophets, was called by the divine voice and became certain of his destiny, the moment when, like the prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him *) ?

(my bold)

Note the emphasis on "none knew". The same emphasis about the same question is in the marcionite incipit: "Jesus descended from above". Who is this unknown entity called Jesus? Who is his divine Father?

The only subtle difference is the following:

• Bruno Bauer thinks that the baptism was introduced by "Mark" in order to resolve a problem of mere simple human ignorance: when did the god Jesus enter in action on the earth?

• While the *Ev's prioritists think that "Mark" introduced the baptism in order to make the god Jesus, and the god of Jesus, known to history, as YHWH and his son, i.e. not as the alien son of an alien god.

Hence, the dilemma: was Bruno Bauer right to define the problem as a problem of mere human ignorance, in need of be resolved?
None knew, therefore a new story had to fix the when.

Or is the *Ev's prioritist right to define the problem as a problem of theological ignorance, in need of being exorcized?
None knew, because Jesus came from a different god.

[Giuseppe]

The following solution of the Synoptic Problem:



...received the imprimatur by the genial Bruno Bauer:

It was only Johann Salomo Semler, whose insightful vision had unraveled many important parts of the history of early Christianity, who discovered (see his German edition of Thomas Townson’s treatise on the Gospels, part one, his epoch-making preface “On Marcion’s Gospel,” Leipzig 1783) that Tertullian’s polemic against the crime of Gnostic forgery was just passionate declamation, and that Marcion had used a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke because he had no other available to him. The fiery African achieved nothing with his invective except that we can now form a fairly complete picture of a Gospel that emerged in the last days of Hadrian from his accusations.

(my bold)

Even so, I doubt sincerely about the same Markan priority: this is the great ostacle it faces.

I would use willingly the Markan priority to argue against fool Christian apologists and historicists hard-to-die, but frankly the Markan incipit is the furthest I would accept for a first gospel..