Was Simon Peter based also on Simon of Ant. 19:7 ?

[Giuseppe]

My impression remains that Jesus (according to Mark or "proto-Mark" and whether Jesus existed or not) is "really" the Messiah (aka "Son of Man") who "must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again."

what is in discussion is not that Jesus is the Messiah but the identity of the god of which Jesus is the Messiah. In my view, the god father of Jesus in proto-Mark is not the Jewish god but the "higher god" of the "heretics".
As I have written before, if we have to follow entirely the parallelisms between the Josephian Simon and the Gospel Simon Peter, then, just as the irony of Josephus against the his Simon is that he was not really a true expert of the Law etc, so the irony of "Mark" against the his Simon Peter is that he didn't know really who was Jesus.

Therefore the answer of Peter is assumed as wrong a priori (Jesus is not the Jewish Christ) and this error is even more evident and more radical if the original version in proto-Mark was:

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

Peter answered, “(the crowd say that) You are the Messiah.”

30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him

[John2]

what is in discussion is not that Jesus is the Messiah but the identity of the god of which Jesus is the Messiah. In my view, the god father of Jesus in proto-Mark is not the Jewish god but the "higher god" of the "heretics".

And in my view the "father" of Jesus is the God of the OT (since Jesus bases his philosophy on the OT), and the OT god is the Jewish God.

Mk. 9:12-13 and 14:21:

He replied, “Elijah does indeed come first, and he restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected? But I tell you that Elijah has indeed come, and they have done to him whatever they wished, just as it is written about him.”

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him ...

[Giuseppe]

I would like to share your same high degree of certainty about the Jewish identity of the Father of Jesus in proto-Mark but sincerely I can't. The excessive and obsessive emphasis on the fulfillment of OT scriptures in the our Gospels seems too much, in my view, a human-too-human reaction against a previous Jesus story (beyond if written or oral, or even mere hearsay) where the mission of Jesus was to destroy the god of the Jews.

[John2]

I would like to share your same high degree of certainty about the Jewish identity of the Father of Jesus in proto-Mark but sincerely I can't. The excessive and obsessive emphasis on the fulfillment of OT scriptures in the our Gospels seems too much, in my view, a human-too-human reaction against a previous Jesus story (beyond if written or oral, or even mere hearsay) where the mission of Jesus was to destroy the god of the Jews.

I don't see how Jesus can have anything to do with Maricon when he bases his God and philosophy on the OT ("as it is written"). As we have it, the NT simply does the same thing that the Dead Sea Scrolls do (the majority of which are dated to the Herodian era, when the NT is set), i.e., they present the people and events of their time as a fulfillment of the OT, and they are no more "obsessive" about it than the NT. In other words, what the NT does is "normal."

For example, the Damascus Document says, "The star is the interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, A star shall come forth out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel."

And 4Q174 says, "He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen" (cf. Acts 15:15-16), and "this saying [concerns] those who turn aside from the way [of the people], as it is written in the book of Isaiah the Prophet concerning the Last Days."

[Giuseppe]

There is a difference. Jesus in Mark and in Mcn surprises.

The surprise is the exact contrary of something that is expected. It works as an antithesis. As the revelation ex-abrupto of a new god. Even if this god was (still) the son of the old Jewish god.

What Mark and Mcn do is not normal.

But you are partially right: an hypothetical historical Jesus is entirely disconnected from the entire Gospel tradition. No surprise in it: Jesus never existed.

[John2]

There is a difference. Jesus in Mark and in Mcn surprises.

The surprise is the exact contrary of something that is expected. It works as an antithesis. As the revelation ex-abrupto of a new god. Even if this god was (still) the son of the old Jewish god.

What Mark and Mcn do is not normal.

But you are partially right: an hypothetical historical Jesus is entirely disconnected from the entire Gospel tradition. No surprise in it: Jesus never existed.

I think Jesus was more or less as "surprising" as any other Fourth Philosopher, since Josephus describes Fourth Philosophers as "innovators" who had altered "the customs of our fathers" with a "system of philosophy" that "we were before unacquainted withal."

[Giuseppe]

Sorry, but you should show the surprise provoked by a single individual to prove the existence of this individual, not the surprise introduced by an entire class of people.

Frankly, it is boring to talk with a dogmatic historicist like you. I know a lot "there out" who do the same logical fallacies. My interest in this forum is to inquiry the process of euhemerization of a Jewish deity in the second century, not to hear the Bart Ehrman of the day.

If you, as historicist, would like to be confuted assuming a Mark written in first century CE, I refer you to this book.

[John2]

Sorry, but you should show the surprise provoked by a single individual to prove the existence of this individual, not the surprise introduced by an entire class of people.

Frankly, it is boring to talk with a dogmatic historicist like you. I know a lot "there out" who do the same logical fallacies. My interest in this forum is to inquiry the process of euhemerization of a Jewish deity in the second century, not to hear the Bart Ehrman of the day.

If you, as historicist, would like to be confuted assuming a Mark written in first century CE, I refer you to this book.

But since my view is that Jesus belonged to this "class of people," then the way Josephus describes them is pertinent. But I think Josephus' reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Ant. 20 is enough to "prove the existence of this individual." While I'm well aware of the counterarguments, they don't work for me, but suit yourself.

[Giuseppe]

But I think Josephus' reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Ant. 20 is enough to "prove the existence of this individual."

it is surely enough to stop the risk of a long discussion.

About Ananus, the similarity of the name with the Ananus of the Gospel legend was probably what moved Irenaeus and GJohn to place Jesus under Claudius. So that Ananus was killer of Jesus in some Christian tradition before that he became killer of the his brother.