Why the Independent Exorcist was really Paul and only him

[Giuseppe]

The idea was proposed first by E. Trocmé, La formation de l'Evangile selon Marc, in virtue of the fact that the Passion story in Luke is probably not derived from Mark 14-16, so many are the differences.


Hence this proto-Mark would be very similar to a collection of sayings/episodes, without a Passion story.

The hypothesis is rational insofar already Paul was humanizing partially Jesus by the "oracles of the Lord Jesus".


But was a proto-Mark without the Passion story really without a crucifixion? Even when the Transfiguration episode could be the original (Celestial) Crucifixion ?

In this case, the Jesus from Mark 9:9 to Mark 13 is already the Risen Christ. This would explain the episode of the Independent Exorcist: by that time, the name of "Jesus" had the recognized status of miracolous power in virtue of the (already happened) resurrection of Jesus. The Independent Exorcist was Paul since Paul was preaching already, by that time, the Risen Christ.


This explains why the disciples were already working as apostles and preachers (Mark 9:38). They were already preaching the Risen Christ.

So the criticism of "Mark" against the Pillars was a criticism addressed against their same view of the Risen Christ, not merely against their view of a "historical" Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

I precise above that Trocmè had introduced first the idea of a proto-Mark without a Passion story (not the idea about Paul as the Independent Exorcist).

[Giuseppe]

Hence it may be explained why Marcion came by proclaiming that the Risen Christ, and only him, denied the Pillars, differently from the "historical" Jesus (in the Marcion's view), still confident about the possibility that the Pillars themselves will deny the god of the Jews (after having seen the Risen Christ).

In the our Gospels, even in the our reconstructed Mcn, it is not clear why Jesus, appearing as a ghost to the Judaizers (and denied/not recognized by them), assumes, even so, that the latter preached the Risen Christ. Raising so the need of a new apostle (Paul) who will preach the (true) Risen Christ.

In the reconstruction of which above, where in proto-Mark the original (cosmic) Crucifixion was the Transfiguration episode, the Risen Christ (=the Jesus descending from the Mount Tabor), would have criticized already the Pillars, despite of their direct witness of the Cosmic Crucifixion of Jesus. Marcion would have radicalized even more so the contrast between the Risen Christ and the disciples became apostles of the Risen Christ: the fatal error of the Judaizers was the preaching of the Resurrection of the Jewish Christ, whereas the Risen one was the Messiah of the Good God. So, even Marcion assumed that the Judaizers preached the Risen Christ (even if they were victims of wrong views about the his Jewishness). He derived this information from the proto-Mark of which I am talking about, where the disciples saw the Risen Christ immediately after the Transfiguration episode.

[Giuseppe]

Whereas Mark corrupted proto-Mark by introducing:

• the Passion story (even after the invention of the Passion story by Marcion?)

• the predictions of Jesus of the coming death of the Son of Man in Jerusalem

...in proto-Mark, after Mark 9:9 the Risen Christ was predicting the his coming Ascension, the destruction of Jerusalem, the priority of the Paulines "children", the denial of the divorce (in this surprisingly similar to the Risen Christ who told directly to Paul about the denial of divorce), the tribute to Caesar, etc. All things regarding the situation of the Church after the experience of the Resurrection.

[Giuseppe]

in proto-Mark, after Mark 9:9 the Risen Christ was predicting the his coming Ascension

Or better: he was predicting the his future Parousia. The Coming Return of the Lord Jesus in the Glory. This explains why the Pillars wanted already by that time the two seats of glory (and not before Mark 9:9).


So, the delay of the Parousia justified the invention of a Passion story, of an earthly crucifixion as a substitute for the expected Parousia. The way by which Jesus has to return now in the glory was in the glory of a collective term, the Son of Man, the Church, "given" materially to Gentiles.

The crucifixion of the titanic figure of the Son of Man represents itself the creation of a new world. In this sense, a "Parousia" in the its own right. The best substitute for it, given the delay of a true Parousia.


A very meager consolation compared to what the author of proto-Mark really expected.

Hence the term "Son of Man" was probably absent in proto-Mark.

It was introduced by "Mark" (editor) to show the Novus Israel (Jesus who becomes the collective Body of Christ) as the apologetical fulfillment of the story, in virtue of the delay of Parousia.

[Giuseppe]

In the Gospel of Philip, if I remember well, the Risen Christ is a titanic Living Cross.

Being for Paul the "crucified Christ" the same "power of god" and the "wisdom of god":

but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

(1 Cor 1:23-24)
...The pauline author of proto-Mark allegorized the "power of god" with Moses (the Law) and the "wisdom of god" with Elijiah (the Prophets). Both are "of god", not independent from him. They therefore are part of the Cosmic Cross (and as such, in Mark, Moses and Elijiah will be allegorized as the two crucified thieves: they are "fixed" to their cross even if described as rebels against the crucified Jesus).

The Transfiguration episode as the original Cosmic Crucifixion of Jesus in the Heavens, a glorious event that coincides with the his Resurrection, is the cause of the "wonder" before who is really already the Risen Christ:

14 When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. 15 As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him.

(Mark 9:14-15)

[Giuseppe]

If therefore there is evidence of a celestial crucifixion of Jesus just in the Earliest Gospel (see the previous post), what remains there about the possibility itself of a historical Jesus?

Nothing.

ADDENDA: is there the hand of a Judaizer interpolator behind the rebellion of the two crucified thieves against Jesus? These two thieves are (allegory of) Moses and Elijiah (appearing around the Cosmic crucifixion of Jesus during the Transfiguration episode). Moses is a rebel against Jesus insofar Jesus is seen as a "scandal for Jews". Elijiah is a rebel against Jesus insofar Jesus is seen as a "folly for the Pagans" (the usual Pagan accusation was not see what the Jewish prophet/the Christian apostle had "seen"). Insofar they are "crucified", also, they share the glory of the crucified Jesus: a subtle way to say that the Law and the Prophets, pace Marcion, are still valid even with the crucified Christ. This is why I suspect that proto-Mark ended in Mark 13, whereas Mark 14-16 is written in 115 CE, or even after Marcion and against Marcion.