Perhaps the paralytic is a man who had strongly identified himself as “Hebrew,” perhaps to the point of protest or vandalism, but also recognized the imminent doom of Roman conflict and didn’t know what to do. What Jesus may have done here was to resolve a conflict that had kept this person locked in place, as though they were in a mental fugue state or otherwise not capable of making personal choices. By clearing their slate, Jesus enabled the paralytic to embrace Rome without fear.
Alternatively, the writer may have intended this to be a physically crippled person, in which case it’s the authority of Jesus that enables this healing. By having simply ordered the person to get up and walk away, they could.
“2 Jesus”: What becomes obvious from this perspective is that Anointed Jesus had an option to telling Zealot Jesus to leave – having him seized, which he would have been in a great position to do as high priest in the company of scribes after having had his roof vandalized by Zealots. The expressions of shock might have been at the enormous generosity being presented.
In any case, if this is Zealot Jesus on the pallet, and he’s representative of the major rebellions against Rome – which the Sadducees would certainly have profited by – the an Anointed Sadducee Jesus would have had the authority and political motive to allow Zealot Jesus to continue as he had been doing. By allowing him to leave despite the damage he had caused, Anointed Jesus is implicitly approving the Zealot rebellion.