"Like a dove" seems to be apparently an innocuous formula:
But then, very bluntly:
Why did "Luke" need to point out the Spirit's descent "in bodily form", when the same author had already specified "like a dove"? Isn't a "dove" already per se "in bodily form"? Or was there also a docetic dove?
The enigma is resolved definitely when the Marcion's incipit is remembered:
I think that there is no need of explanation, here, about what "Luke" did on the text of Mcn.
Now, "Luke" is catholic, not separationist. He can't conceive that a man (John the Baptist) could baptize a god. Hence he explains clumsly why Jesus allowed the his baptism by John:
That clumsy explanation was not necessary, if "Luke" was separationist as Mark. But in Luke that explanation was necessary, since "Luke" couldn't ignore the baptism episode having found it in Mark and in Matthew.
That "Luke" corrupted Mcn is a fact recognized now by the consensus of scholars.
The my point here is another:
In Mcn there is not a baptism of Jesus. Why did Marcion ignore it at all, when "Luke" was moved to justify someway it, at the price of remembering it?
The fact that "Luke" did copy and paste of "in bodily form" from the Marcion's incipit to the his description of the descending dove is evidence of the fact that the baptism episode, in any Gospel, is a development of something as the Marcion's incipit.
Therefore also the separationism in Mark is later than a Docetic christology found in a previous gospel (proto-Mark?).
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.