Someone had even argued that Secret Mark - not being a forgery - is evidence of the initiation of this young rich (but this is not necessary for my hypothesis).
I am intrigued by the following remark:
(Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 197, my bold )Very probably, as W. B. Smith has suggested, the statement that the man was young and that Jesus loved him is an echo of Hosea ii, 1 : “ When Israel was young I loved him.”
MY SUGGESTION:
If the young is allegory of Israel, but only of the Israel loved by the Lord - i.e., only when Jesus has not still been ''delivered'' to the gentiles (but he is still for the Jews), then the surprising fact that the instructions by this young are not obeyed by the women at the tomb may mean that Israel ceases, in that precise moment, to be loved by the Lord.
After all, if the women would love this young, then they would have informed Peter and co.
The disobedience of the women is therefore the allegory of the abandon, by God, of the young Israel and by implication of Peter and co.
That young is not more loved by God insofar his command is disobeyed by the women, who therefore represent the Church more faithfully than Peter and co.