Is Peter Mythicist in Mark ?

[Giuseppe]

If Jesus didn't exist, then someone who did claim not-knowledge of Jesus of Nazaret was innocent and not a liar.

Under the mythicist paradigm, the Christians who were unaware of the concept of the historical Jesus could consider a ''degrading heresy'' (so the happy term of Robert M. Price) that new concept introduced the first time by the first Gospel (Mark or Mcn: a pauline Gospel in both the cases).

Therefore the victims of the first Gospel had to be precisely the anti-pauline followers of the Pillars: the Petrine Christians. Their ''fault'', when they read Mark the first time, was to have preached, until that moment, a Christ not known by them.

Someone among them did choose to correct Mark by writing Matthew. But surely other Petrines rejected the entire concept of a historical Jesus, since they did prefer to continue the preaching of the original mythical Christ. Their expected and more natural answer could only be: WE DON'T KNOW WHO IS THIS JESUS OF NAZARET.


Then Peter should be considered innocent and not a liar, in this episode:

While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, “You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I do not know or understand what you are talking about.” And he went out into the forecourt.Then the cock crowed. 69 And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about.” 72 At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

When Peter ''began to curse'', he was really cursing the historicist concept of Jesus, in that moment. The irony of ''Mark'' (insider) is that Peter is to be condemned even if he was saying the truth (that he didn't know a Jesus from Nazaret).

[Giuseppe]

Peter denies the historicist concept of Jesus in Mark 14:71 when he listened the first time about a Jesus condemned by the Jewish elders.

This may be a subtle way by ''Mark'' (insider) to describe how the first people to euehmerize the mythical Christ were who proclaimed themselves the killers of him: the Jewish elite (according to a tradition found then in the Talmud).

The allegory	the hidden meaning:
Peter sees Jesus during his preaching	Peter saw the angel Jesus during hallucinations
Jesus is condemned by the Jewish elders	The Jews euhemerized Jesus in a time 100 years before Pilate.
Peter denies three times Jesus	Peter denies the hearsay about a Jesus condemned by Jews
Jesus is crucified by Romans	the true Jesus is crucified by the archons of this aeon

This may reveal that the entire point behind the pointing out of the Roman (against a Jewish) crucifixion of Jesus was a Christian answer against the Jewish hearsay (and euhemerization) of Jesus lived under Ianneus.

Something as:

''Our Jesus was killed not by you Jews, but by the Archons of this Age, acting behind the Romans''.

[Giuseppe]

But then when Jesus predicts the denial of Peter, he is commanding deliberately Peter to do a precise thing: to deny the news about a Christ condemned by Jews.

Mark 14:

27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:

“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’[d]
28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”

29 Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.”

30 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”

31 But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.

Peter wants to realize the will of Jesus: to deny the hearsay about false Christs (and the Christ condemned by Pharisees IS a false Christ).

Mark 13:

At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

So it is explained why Peter ''broke down and wept'' in Mark 14:72 : he suffered because he was doing his duty and the reader is moved to have mercy about him.

I think that it is time of seeing in a new positive light the denial of Peter in Mark, at least under a mythicist paradigm.


And if the Peter's function is to deny the (proto-talmudic) news about a Christ condemned by pharisees, then the Barabbas's function (the Judas's function and the Cyrenaic's function) is to deny the news about a Zealot Christ.