hearsay about Jesus as anti-apocalypticism

[Giuseppe]

There is a strange contradiction behind Mark 13:21. Surely behind the identification of the Messiah "here" or "there" there was a genuine apocalyptic impulse. But then the warning against the false Messiahs was a real implicit condemnation of that same apocalypticism. The paradox is that Mark 13 is usually interpreted as the best expression of that genuine apocalypticism. Hence the contradiction: hearsay about Christ denies the same apocalyptic hopes that provoked that same hearsay about Christ.

My conclusion is that this is evidence of a real conflict between prophets (like Paul) and first euhemerizers (like the real author of Mark 13:21). Evidence of the more general conflict between epistles and gospels.

[Giuseppe]

Could Paul be one of these false apostles proclaiming that the Christ is "there" ?

In that case Paul was "fixing" Jesus in a time and/or in a place different from the Gospel claims.

[Giuseppe]

It is a big mistake of modern historicist exegesis to assume a priori that the false Messiahs seen "here" or "there" (Mark 13:21) were real flesh-and-blood men and not rather hallucinated angels. Seen in this latter light, it's possible to derive new evidence for the Paul's localization of the Christ's apparition: It was somewhere on the earth.