On the naked young escaped to the Roman soldiers as the true Jesus

[Giuseppe]

I am reading again what WB Smith thinks about the young naked of Mark 14. Essentially, he is a divine figure, and since there are no other gods apart Jesus, then he is the true Jesus, the divine Jesus.

Evidently in Ezek. ix, 2 he is a Secretary (or Recording Angel), and Zimmern (K.A.T. 404) does not hesitate to identify him as "manifestly the Babylonian Planet- and Secretary-God Nabu," akin to the Greek Hermes, whence may be explained very naturally the term "young man" used by Mark. It seems, then, that we are dealing with a technical expression for a celestial personage

(Ecce Deus, p. 112)

This would explain why the Docetists could read completely undisturbed all the Passion stories of the various gospels. It was sufficient, for them, to point out the escape of the naked young (i.e. Jesus) to elude in advance any catholicizing insistence that Jesus "really" suffered.

The colossal irony would be that the pious women saw Jesus in the tomb, masked as the young in white robe, hence the 'risen' Jesus that the 12 would have seen in Galilee would be just as fictitious (a mere double) as the Jesus who was crucified.

If the young naked was so heretical in his docetic function, then why did the catholics preserve him in all the gospels?

The reason is that the Catholics felt themselves reassured about the christological implications of the naked young, since the Barabbas episode was designed to confirm again and again the readers about the orthodox identity of the real victim: he was the Jesus called Christ, not a marcionite and docetic Jesus Son of Father. How can you doubt about it?

[Secret Alias]

As a Muslim, especially Ismali Muslims, what happened to Jesus. They will tell you as a matter of fact "he escaped."

[Giuseppe]

The idea of comparing the escape of the naked young and the release of Barabbas has come to me by observing this image:



One would think prima facie that it refers to the naked young, but really it is Barabbas who is "fleeing".

[Giuseppe]

Mlinssen has pointed out this curious coincidence in the Gospel of Thomas, which makes even more strict the identity between the naked young and the "Jesus Son of Father" (execrated later by the Judaizers as the bastard "Bar-Abbas"):

Wow, Giuseppe!

Garments are outer skins that we wear, and I frequently refer to them as Stage Costumes in my work: I-dentities. We all fake our personalities and they vary with the scenery: we wear different faces at home, at work, in the pub, etc. They're not the real us

37. his Disciples said: what day will thou reveal outward to us, and what day will behold thee. IS said: Whenever you should strip you of your shame, and you carry your garments, and you place them at the bottom of your feet in the manner of those little young children; and you tread them: The[n you will beh]old the child of he who is living, and you will not fear

The "child" is my neutral translation, and it's the only way in Coptic to say 'son': obviously, "he who is living" is the father. So let's repeat:

IS said: Whenever you should strip you of your shame, and you carry your garments, and you place them at the bottom of your feet in the manner of those little young children; and you tread them: The[n you will beh]old the Son of the Father, and you will not fear

In Thomas this is important as it shows us how we are kept prisoner by our two greatest opponents: shame and fear.
But Mark is highly likely referring to this Logion, and I am very much surprised by your link to Barabbas which makes me come up with this email: when you "have become naked", you will see the Son of the Father

We must remember that Mark likely had access only to *Ev, unlike Matthew - but P. Oxy. 5575 is evidence of the fact that *Ev tries hard to preserve Thomas even though he doesn't shy away from slightly bending the material - but thank you for making me see this link!

Martin