Simon Magus the standing one and Simon Peter the sitting one

[Giuseppe]

A premise about Simon Magus:

Sources not only preserve details about Simon's regard for fire, they also connect Simon with the traditions of the Persian magoi who held special reverence for fire.

https://books.google.it/books?id=qCs5PB ... re&f=false

Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

(Mark 14:54)

Is this an irony addressed against Simon Magus, the ''standing one'' and worshipper of the ''fire'' ?

John 18:16

Peter stayed outside near the gate.

John 18:25

While Simon Peter was standing there warming himself, someone asked him, “Aren’t you one of Jesus' followers?”

Even the presence of Peter ''near the gate'' may be a reference to his role (given by Matthew, for example) as door-keeper of the Gates of the Heaven (in virtue of the his having the famous ''key of heaven'').

[Giuseppe]

An explanation may be that ''Mark'' was denigrating the Simonians, by making Peter ''sitting at the fire near the gate'' as a parody addressed against Simon Magus.

[Giuseppe]

Simon Magus	Simon Peter
He is called the ''Standing one''	He is standing during the Jesus's trial.
He adores the fire as first principle of the creation	He is warming himself at the fire.
He was able to mask himself as a man, even if he was not really a man	His Galilean origin is unmasked by the female servant of the high priest.
He didn't suffer really	He suffered really for the his denial of Jesus
He was manifested in Judea as the Son	He was recognized as the follower of Christ

Especially the last point is particularly anti-simonian.

[Giuseppe]

So, which the more probable explanation of these polemic clues?

It is along the lines of Mark 13's defense against rival claims of messianic identity. So Peter is compared to these messianists in order to give the impression that even if the same first disciples of Jesus were sinners and riotous (just as the rival Christians of ''Mark''), they were able to repent and didn't confirm openly the schism (contrary to the rival Christians of ''Mark'').

This gives us a date for Mark after the birth of Christian Gnosticism: 100-140 CE.