I am reading Holy Fable Volume 2, and it is with great surprise that I see by Price doing the same my point (with a little difference I will explain) to which entirely independently (I say this with a bit of pride ) I was arrived at.
I had written, de facto, about Mark 8:
27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, ''(The men say that) Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
...the following comment:
...are anti-marcionite interpolations, given the fact that in the Gospel used by marcionites there was no mention of John the Baptist or Elijah. By removing these verses, the answer of Peter becomes: ''the men say that Thou art the Christ''.28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3601&start=10
And still:
Therefore the point of the Earliest Gospel is that the Fall of Jerusalem happened precisely because the Jews thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3601
Now I find the same identical concept expressed by Price, and this is wonderful!
One thing Jesus is clear about: he is going to be arrested, tormented, crucified, and resurrected. Is this supposed to be a clarification of Jesus' messiahship? Or a denial of it? Six-six-six of one, half a dozen of the other. How many times have you heard it piously said that Jesus did think himself the Messiah but completely redefined it. Uh, you mean, in other words, he didn't think he was the Messiah? Because that's like saying, ''Yes, I'm a Socialist, but of course I mean that in the sense that I believe in free markets and private ownership of the means of production. Are you with me, comrades?'' Because if you define ''Messiah'' as a savior who surrenders to death on a Roman cross, rises again, and gets enthroned invisibly in heaven - you're not talking about the Jewish Messiah anymore. Unless you are the Kheshire Cat.
(p. 61-62, original cursive, my bold)
I had to hear prof Price repeat these my words - introducing the fact that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah in proto-Mark as a serious possibility - and not by someone here in this forum. It's a fact that says little, but also all about the our reluctance to accept the concrete possibility that the author of the Earliest Gospel hated the God of the Jews.
To this same possibility the prof Price alludes, with the his typical irony: