Moderator: andrewcriddle
Right. Not παραγω in this case. It is, rather, παρερχομαι, an important link to the theophany of Exodus 34.6.neilgodfrey wrote:Jesus was also walking as if to "pass by" (not paragon, though) the disciples when he was walking on the "sea" of Galilee.
All very true. Great comments, as usual, Ben.Ben C. Smith wrote:This hearkens back, for me, to what I wrote about how we approach, and what we expect from, the text. It seems that some are truly bothered by the text as it stands in some way, on its own merits. And it seems that I am not. And I am not sure I know why that is. To me it just makes sense that Simon might be both a Cyrenian and a passerby, and that his two sons were known in some way to the Marcan readership. If Mark intended to recount fact, then Alexander and Rufus were sons of someone who allegedly participated in the passion. If Mark was intended to recount fiction, then Alexander and Rufus are still known to the readership, but are also in-jokes of some kind, probably of a kind that we may never fully understand (maybe something along the lines of what Neil suggested about plugging two butcher friends, for instance). Matthew and Luke omitted them because they are in the same boat we are: we do not know who these fellows are; that much seems so simple to me, and yet it raises eyebrows for others. Objections have been brought up to Simon being called a Cyrenian instead of saying that he was of Cyrene, to Matthew and Luke omitting Alexander and Rufus, and to other aspects of this tiny text, but frankly I do not see how such objections work on their own merits. And I admit that maybe it is just a case of me failing to see something obvious. People can be just so different sometimes.
I can totally understand Alexander and Rufus not lining up with how one reads the rest of Mark, thereby becoming a mystery to solve. If, for example, one reads Mark as a totally fictional and somewhat pure adaptation of messianic LXX passages, then Alexander and Rufus do require some kind of explanation, and perhaps then it is time to call in the silphium and the ram horns, and hope they can help. But in that case it is not any particular anomaly in the text itself that is raising the ruckus; it is the fact that the text looks like it does not fit the overall theory. I can understand that, even if I do not share the theory.
The verse didn't appear to make much sense by itself, so 'any port in a storm', right? I believed it for a long time (and even liked it until very recently, when new relevant information came to my attention ... it was not any particular 'theory' or propensity for a symbolic reading alone that justified it).The precise naming of Simon and his sons is probably due to their being known among early Christian believers to whom Mark addressed his gospel.
That's significant. I'll have to check the studies relating Mark's gospel to the Second Exodus again -- unless you have already done so and can save me the effort.Ben C. Smith wrote:Right. Not παραγω in this case. It is, rather, παρερχομαι, an important link to the theophany of Exodus 34.6.neilgodfrey wrote:Jesus was also walking as if to "pass by" (not paragon, though) the disciples when he was walking on the "sea" of Galilee.
Ben.
I think it is in A Marginal Jew: Mentor, Message, and Miracles that John Meier gives a quite excellent account of this pericope and its derivation from the LXX, including this theophanic link.neilgodfrey wrote:That's significant. I'll have to check the studies relating Mark's gospel to the Second Exodus again -- unless you have already done so and can save me the effort.Ben C. Smith wrote:Right. Not παραγω in this case. It is, rather, παρερχομαι, an important link to the theophany of Exodus 34.6.neilgodfrey wrote:Jesus was also walking as if to "pass by" (not paragon, though) the disciples when he was walking on the "sea" of Galilee.
Ben.
I have faith that there is something going on with the word ἄγω (agó) in Mark, but I still haven't figured it out. But one of my impressions is for example that Mark used the verb συνάγω (sunagó - gather together) to show that Jesus "established" or caused the rise of an "other" synagogue (συναγωγή), the one of the crowds, in opposition to "the official synagogues".Ben C. Smith wrote:I do not see how being a passerby with respect to Jesus carrying his cross is the opposite of having sons known to the Marcan readership. To introduce Simon as a passerby and then reveal that he is actually related to someone you know... that is just one good way to tell the story.Secret Alias wrote:Perhaps more significant is the way Mark at first introduces Simon: "a passerby, Simon, a Cyrenian" (paragonta tina Simona Kyrenaion)
If this stands alone, it shows he did not expect his readers to know Simon personally. This is the way the other texts preserve the episode. By adding, however, that Simon was "the father of Alexander and Rufus" he shows that he expected his readers to know Simon's two sons. On the surface it appears that Alexander and Rufus may have been members of the Markan community. But there can be argued to be a disconnect - first introducing Simon as a paragonta and then suddenly by way of addition and qualification the exact opposite is manifested.
Are you saying that העברִים in Psalm 129.8 [128.8 LXX] should be translated as the Hebrews, not as [the] passersby? Or are you just pointing to an example of this Hebrew word so that we can see that the Hebrew letters are the same for both words?Moreover I strongly suspect that Simon's original epithet was a deliberately bad translation of 'Hebrew.' Notice that in Psalm 129:8 = הָעֹבְרִ֗ים. Hebrew: a Hebrew = עברי.
Ben.
Hi, Peter. Thank you.Peter Kirby wrote:All very true. Great comments, as usual, Ben.
...or...:I will note here, by way of defense....
...I just want to make sure that you are addressing general issues of interpretation, and not specific issues raised by my post, which was directed against what appear to me to be myopic readings of Mark 15.21 (sampled above), not against readings that take into account the broad scope of the entire gospel. It would not matter much in the long run, except that in this case I do disagree with a separate point of your post, and I need to make sure I am understanding you in other regards, so as to tell whether those other regards are related to my disagreement....it was not any particular 'theory' or propensity for a symbolic reading alone that justified it.