What if the fugue of the naked young, far from being only a mere midrash from Amos etc, was another expedient, in all similar to the expedient used to expel the Marcion's Jesus Son of Father ("Bar-Abbas") from crucifixion, to remove the young naked from a prominent role held by him in the Passion story in a previous version ?
In particular, I think about the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel.
Assume for a moment that he was the young naked.
As my argument goes, then "Mark" was embarrassed by the excessive role of this Beloved Disciple, and he applied social distancing by introducing his fugue, and giving him only the mere role of messenger of the resurrection of Jesus in Galilee.
This would be another case where an embarrassing figure is reduced to the role of a mere precursor (think about the more famous case: John the Baptist).
But while about Barabbas we know beyond any reasonable doubt why he was embarrassing (he was the parody of the Marcion's Jesus), why was the young naked so embarrassing for "Mark"?
I have talked in a previous thread about the separationism in action in the same Fourth Gospel.
The words of Jesus "this is your mother", were addressed to the Beloved Disciple, but not from the Jesus on the cross: from the Jesus who had just abandoned a man on the cross.
That man was the Beloved Disciple.
By remembering him the presence of her mother, he (Jesus) had remembered that he (the young naked on the cross) was a mere mortal, the mere recipient of the spiritual Christ.
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.