Simon, from Cyrene.

[neilgodfrey]

It may be possible to argue that in the Gospel of Mark every character and place-name is given a symbolic function as indicated by a symbolic name: http://vridar.org/2010/12/12/more-puns- ... nd-places/

[steve43]

You could possibly argue that, but it would probably be ridiculous.

[neilgodfrey]

Well some very reputable scholars do argue for the symbolic nature of the names in the narratives.

I suppose fundies and apologists would dismiss their works as ridiculous without even bothering to read let alone engage them.

One suspects they would react this way because of their fear of perceived threats to their faith, black and white, either/or mentality that if a person or place is given a literary or symbolic function it must therefore not be capable of also existing in reality. They confuse function in a narrative with non-existence outside the narrative in other contexts.

[steve43]

Do YOU make that argument, or just reputable scholars?

[neilgodfrey]

Do YOU make that argument, or just reputable scholars?

I did not realize the extent to which the puns in Mark's gospel existed until I read the scholarly literature.

[ericbwonder]

One of the reasons I am not a mythicist is that it just seems mythicists try too hard...like they're explaining away rather than explaining....avoiding historicity rather than finding good reasons to argue against it. This thread seems to illustrate that, imho.

[DCHindley]

One of the reasons I am not a mythicist is that it just seems mythicists try too hard...like they're explaining away rather than explaining....avoiding historicity rather than finding good reasons to argue against it. This thread seems to illustrate that, imho.

Yesssss ...

[Peter Kirby]

Fantastic post, Kunigunde. Thank you.

(Brought to you by Android while spending time at the beach... )

[neilgodfrey]

One of the reasons I am not a mythicist is that it just seems mythicists try too hard...like they're explaining away rather than explaining....avoiding historicity rather than finding good reasons to argue against it. This thread seems to illustrate that, imho.

I didn't think the Simon of Cyrene question had any bearing on the mythicist question. The notion of symbolism in Mark's gospel is something that is abundantly addressed in the mainstream scholarship. Does every thread here have to be brought back somehow to the mythicist question?

[neilgodfrey]

Further-- if we can understand the origin of the Simon of Cyrene account in a way that best accords with what else we know about the Gospel of Mark then we have another notch towards our understanding of the nature and origins of the gospels.

I think it's far more interesting to try to learn what we can about how the gospels came into existence and why they look the way they do than to approach every piece of data from the perspective of whether or not it supports or refutes mythicism. Such narrow-minded tendentiousness is quite pointless in my opinion.

We miss out on so much if we are obsessed with mythicism/historicism. I suspect there was a historical "Peter" but Professor Mary Ann Tolbert has made an impressive scholarly case for Peter being depicted throughout the Gospel of Mark as a symbol of the rocky soil in the parable of the sower. I have no doubt Tolbert does not believe this means Peter was mythical in real life.

Classicist Professor John Moles, also a firm "Jesus historicist", has published peer-review arguments demonstrating the symbolic use of the name and person of "Jesus" in the Gospel of Mark, also.

The fact that such arguments come from scholars who are by no means "mythicists" demonstrates, surely, that symbolic narratives and characters do not mean we have to get hung up and all pin-headed over whether or not a particular question can be used for or against mythicism.

Get over this mythicism thing. Move on. There's so much more to learn and understand about the origins of Christianity and the gospels we look to as such central documents in our cultural heritage.