My Answer: generic militant messianists. Note that if this answer is true, this means the before Marcionites there was no form of Christianity.
My Proof:
So Prof Bermejo Rubio:
(my bold)Objection 8: Jesus’ disciples had no relationship with Zealotism
It has been often proposed that the nicknames of several of Jesus’ disciples
—«Qananaios»/«Zealot», «Barjona» and «Iskarioth»— betray their
belonging to anti-Roman resistance.
...
Objection 9: Jesus was deeply different from his disciples, and any
violence conveyed in the Gospels should be attributed only to them
Since, as we have seen, there are hints in the tradition at the violent
proclivities of some disciples, a very frequent device consists in drawing
a systematic and neat dividing line between the disciples —who could
be sometimes aggressive and short-sighted— and an utterly pacific Jesus,
who appears to be beyond their violent logic and unconnected with external
turbulences.
Admittedly, Jesus was a charismatic preacher who seems to have had
a strong personality and some idiosyncratic views, so one can surely assume
that there were differences between him and his disciples (just as
there were probably differences within the group of his disciples themselves).
Several problems arise, however, when it comes to establishing
a yawning chasm. Jesus was the leader and master of his group, and it was
he who commanded and gave orders, so his guidelines must have been
followed. And it was he indeed who chose the group which became
his discipleship, who held them as his disciples along his public life, and
who sent them to preach as missionaries in his name, so he must have
checked that they were not too obtuse. This means that there must have
been continuity between the ideas of the master and those of his disciples
during his lifetime. To think otherwise means attributing to Jesus a degree
of lack of realism which does not fit what the tradition recounts of him.
Moreover, although only the disciples are portrayed as carrying and
using swords, it was Jesus who uttered the sayings on taking the cross,
on bringing a sword on the earth (Matt 10:34), and on acquiring swords
(Luke 22:36), and it was he who nurtured their hopes to become leading
figures in Israel (Matt 19:28). It was he who, according to the sources,
provoked an incident in the Temple entailing forcible activity, and who
had royal ambitions. To claim that political aims and violence only
concerns the disciples is extremely unlikely from a psychological and a
historical point of view. In fact, that claim seems to depend on the theological
myth of Jesus’ uniqueness.
Therefore, what the disciples wanted and did must have agreed, at
least in general terms, with Jesus’ own goals and expectations. This means
that, if the disciples waited for an integral redemption of Israel, Jesus
must have expected it too; and that, if they were armed with swords and
eventually used them, violence was not ultimately incompatible with
Jesus’ view.
source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/253557717/Hy ... NDUE-Libre
Assuming Mcn as first gospel, we have precisely a Jesus with a high ''degree of lack of realism''!!!
Against ''what the tradition recounts of him''!!!
Therefore the Objection 9 is right and the Zealot Hypothesis is confuted (or at least is refuted the best argument in its favor existing today). Note that I'm giving another proof of the complete failure of the Criterion of Embarrassment!
Therefore it's a FACT that the ''available material pointing to a seditionist stance'' that ''has become a set of disiecta membra'' exists in our canonical Gospels...
...but the true reason of their presence in the first gospel is another:
To describe deliberately the 12 disciples as people of zealot or pro-zealot background that totally misrepresent the identity of Jesus, mistaking him for the warrior king-Messiah son of the creator god and prophesied by the scriptures, when in fact Jesus is truely the Son of a distinct, alien God.
It is deliberate also the description of Jesus as never denying explicitly the military hopes of his disciples and the charges of sedition by his accusers.
But when that ''pattern of disiecta membra pointing to a seditionist istance'' becomes inconsistent with the surrounding material (by losing a theological reason for his presence), inducing many to suspect a ''historical'' Jesus to be a seditious anti-Roman?
It's a fact that some pagans thought à la Bermejo Rubio.
Eusebius talks about Hierocles'view:
Answer: that existing ''pattern of seditious disiecta membra'' becomes inconsistent once that our canonical Gospels have Jesus converted into a Jewish messiah foretold by the Scriptures, with the result that Jesus risked being really confused with any one of seditious anti-Roman messianists, thereby overlapping his true identity with the exact image that his disciples wanted to have about him in Mcn.
Christum [ ] a Iudaeis fugatum collecta nongentorum hominum manu latrocinia fecisse.
Christ [], fled from the Jews, gathered nine hundred men to engage in banditry.
In short:
1) in Mcn, Jesus == Son of Alien God, but the disciples hope (wrongly) that he will fight the Romans because they believe in the identity Jesus == warrior Messiah of YHWH.
2) against Mcn, our proto-catholic Gospels insist that is true the identity Jesus == Messiah of YHWH
3) therefore: against Mcn, in our Gospels the view of the disciples about Jesus becomes partially true, with the mere collateral effect that their military hopes about Jesus expose him to the charge of being a seditious anti-Roman (see for example Hierocles, see for example Celsus).
4) hence: the need of an apology especially where the ''pattern of seditious disiecta membra'' is more evident.
There is evidence of point 4:
In Mcn is attested the verse Luke 12:51:
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division
Bu these verses Luke 8:35-38 are not found in Mcn:
See also:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1668&p=38157&sid=5e ... 711#p38156