Very interesting observation. Thankyou for thatSo in the Gospel of Mark there are hundreds of parallels to the Jewish scriptures, and nowhere else in Mark it is said that anything happened in order to fulfill the scriptures, even though the events of the scenes parallel the scriptures. But in Matthew, over and over again Matthew calls out these parallels and says that they happened in order to fulfill scripture
My thought would be when Mark was written the idea was to make clear the Jewish-positive atmosphere (contra Marcion in Ev priority) but they had not yet developed the scriptural fulfilment aspect - which is post-Markan.
The same thing is noticeable in the epistles, very little/no scriptural fulfilment (given the Marcion connection not a surprise)
So Mark just pre-dates the enthusaism the church later developed for these scriptural fulfilments - but are they entirely absent in Mark?
Incidently the 'Preaching of Peter' goes to show how keen some were on this maybe around the date of Matthew composition
Joseph:
I would take the accounts of Simon of Samaria with a large pinch of salt. They're surely garbled at best. I mean, the account of Hippolytus does have Simon making midrash on the Pentateuch. That's not the way to be an arch-heretic, I mean it sounds like he didn't study his "How to be a heretic" manual too deeply, and he forgets to mention the demiurge. I doubt the Simon we sort of "know" is anything more than a caricature!But lets go back to ben Stada shall we?
Not sure I follow. I think the theology of the epistles is geared to resurrection and averse to anything prior to the crucifixion being important. The Marcionites are following on from this big time. Not sure how the birth narratives could follow a Pauline tradition - I mean isn't that the 'human' tradition that everyone just gets born? Any human could serve as a model for Jesus being born.You know, it never made sense to me why the Marcionites should repudiate the birth account of Jesus when Paul likewise undergoes a similar process. But if I am correct then Matthew's and Luke's inclusion of a birth narrative would mean that they are sourced from the Pauline tradition, only switching out Paul for Jesus, but keeping the same implication.