Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[neilgodfrey]

Simon of Cyrene did not carry Jesus' cross. Who would have had a correct recollection of that? -- Gerd Ludemann, "Jesus after two thousand years", p. 107

If we take a step back and ask how likely it is that the early Christians (assuming they were spawned by the belief in a historical Jesus and his resurrection) would have been able to call upon any witnesses to what had happened to Jesus after his arrest in Gethsemane -- apart from the simple fact that he was crucified -- then the entire image of Simon Cyrenian carrying the cross collapses into imaginative fiction.

How is this not simply an argument from personal incredulity? (For the record, I dislike defending a position here and now that is conducive to a naïve historicity, but I do want to know what is behind the assumptions leading to the statements above.)

Ben.

Personal incredulity is the conclusion, not the premise from which the argument arises.

There are none of the standard signals in Mark to advise readers that what they are reading is based on "historical or biographical" sources (identification of author, outline of sources relied upon, expressions of understanding an audience point of view -- the usual signals to promote reader trust in the author's historical tales).

There is little doubt that the bulk of the passion narrative is based upon Old Testament scriptures.

There is little doubt that the depiction of Pilate's actions and vacillations in Mark is utterly unhistorical. Of all the multiple thousands of crucifixions around Jerusalem/Judea in that era we have evidence (iirc and as Crossan points out) of only one victim receiving a burial.

It is what we know of the historical Pilate and historical crucifixions and Roman justice that leaves our "history-inquiring" minds incredulous when presented with an all-knowing narrative that tells us what was said between priests and Pilate, what Jesus said before Pilate, Pilate being swayed by a mob, .... all the details that are subsequent to the arrest of Jesus. Especially having read that the disciples (potential witnesses) all fled -- (though even that is just another bit of "prophecy historicized").

Historical knowledge leads us to expect Jesus would have been swiftly pulled out for crucifixion and left to rot once in the hands of the Roman governor. Mark's theological morality tale woven from OT passages and without any of the signals normally associated with ancient histories or biographies gives us no reason to doubt what we would expect from our knowledge of history.

[Ben C. Smith]

Personal incredulity is the conclusion, not the premise from which the argument arises.

Thank you for explaining, Neil.

Did not Ludemann seem to be using an argument from incrudulity when he asked rhetorically who would have had a correct recollection of that? But I do not have the context, so maybe not.

There are none of the standard signals in Mark to advise readers that what they are reading is based on "historical or biographical" sources (identification of author, outline of sources relied upon, expressions of understanding an audience point of view -- the usual signals to promote reader trust in the author's historical tales).

There is little doubt that the bulk of the passion narrative is based upon Old Testament scriptures.

There is little doubt that the depiction of Pilate's actions and vacillations in Mark is utterly unhistorical. Of all the multiple thousands of crucifixions around Jerusalem/Judea in that era we have evidence (iirc and as Crossan points out) of only one victim receiving a burial.

It is what we know of the historical Pilate and historical crucifixions and Roman justice that leaves our "history-inquiring" minds incredulous when presented with an all-knowing narrative that tells us what was said between priests and Pilate, what Jesus said before Pilate, Pilate being swayed by a mob, .... all the details that are subsequent to the arrest of Jesus. Especially having read that the disciples (potential witnesses) all fled -- (though even that is just another bit of "prophecy historicized").

Historical knowledge leads us to expect Jesus would have been swiftly pulled out for crucifixion and left to rot once in the hands of the Roman governor. Mark's theological morality tale woven from OT passages and without any of the signals normally associated with ancient histories or biographies gives us no reason to doubt what we would expect from our knowledge of history.

If you and I were to sit down and run through the passion sequence (indeed, the whole gospel of Mark) one line at a time, I am pretty sure we would agree on getting rid of 95%+ of it on the basis of derivation from the LXX (prophecy historicized, à la Crossan) or other sources, basic improbability, and similar negative criteria. But sometimes, when I am finished with all of that, there are little details that stand out as different somehow, and I do not want to risk sweeping them away with the rest by mistake. (This is what I meant when I talked about wishing to avoid ironing Mark flat. Those contours may mean something.)

I am fine remaining agnostic on Simon, Alexander, and Rufus. But until a likely solution to all three of them is forthcoming, I intend to reserve judgment on the various directions they could go.

Ben.

[outhouse]

(assuming they were spawned by the belief in a historical Jesus and his resurrection)

Martyrdom at Passover.

Instead of resurrection which may be later built off spiritual instead of physical

would have been able to call upon any witnesses to what had happened to Jesus after his arrest in Gethsemane

Assuming it is historical as you proposed. Thing is illiterate people talk, and with half a million people, there would be no shortage of people talking, right or wrong, someone could have stated that place for arrest and not be wrong if it actually happened.

After arrest, plays no real bearing one way or the other due to crucifixions being placed at entry/exit ways as to set an example for those who might want to make the same mistake.

then the entire image of Simon Cyrenian carrying the cross collapses into imaginative fiction.

--

[Ben C. Smith]

I keep trying to link the two sons of Simon to two names known from the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline epistles: Rufus, a select man in the Lord (Romans 16.13), and Alexander the coppersmith, who did Paul much harm (2 Timothy 4.14) and who may be the same Alexander whom Paul supposedly delivered over to Satan, along with Hymenaeus, for his own good (1 Timothy 1.20). A good one and a bad one. But this seems to get me no further than, indeed probably not even as far as, Rufus as a representative of Rome and Alexander as a representative of Greece. What would it mean? Why Simon as their father, some bit player in the passion drama? Wheels spin, mud flies... but the truck is stuck.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

You might have an easier time arguing that someone wanted us to think that rather than this was the state of affairs (i.e. as an editorial feature to imply the New Testament was a closed set of writings of a unified Church cf. Trobisch First Edition of the New Testament). I think trying to argue that something actually happened or that any of this nonsense is true is a barrier that's too high. Just argue that someone wanted it to appear this way for a specific purpose like Trobisch did. It's good enough and it doesn't require any of it is plausible or actually happened in real history.

[MrMacSon]

Re

... the highly symbolic character that runs through the gospel at several levels -- structural, thematic, name puns ...... Especially puns. Commentators can rarely avoid the puns on names and places (like Bethphage, Jairus...) but then when they come across names that don't fit the larger pattern they seem to jump ship and assume something that would be completely uncharacteristic of the gospel (any gospel). I think it's more likely that we lost the associations that originally attached themselves to those exceptions. -- http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 026#p34026

I came across this recently -

The name Boanerges occurs only once in the Bible. Boanerges is the nickname that Jesus gives to James and John, the two sons of Zebedee (Mark 3:17). Jesus doesn't explain why He gives them this name, but author Mark explains that Boanerges means υιοι (uioi meaning sons; or figuratively, partakers) βροντης (bronthes meaning of thunder).

Jesus gives some of His disciples a nickname, and since we like to believe that Jesus was always full of love for His people, we also readily assume that His nicknames reflect that appreciation. But, quite contrarily, Jesus very often expresses His disappointment towards His disciples. Right before Mark mentions Boanerges, he reports that Jesus renders Simon the name Peter. Peter doesn't mean rock as many believe, but pebble (see our article on the name Peter). Peter is the footloose pebble, but his faith is the petra upon which Jesus would build His church. In Matthew 16:23, Jesus even goes as far as to call Peter 'Satan'.

Even though James and John would grow to be giants of the faith, their career started off with some serious hiccups. And those hiccups were invariably met by Jesus' insistence for the boys to pipe down. Luke tells the story of how Jesus and the disciplines are denied lodging in a Samaritan village. James and John helpfully offer to command fire from heaven to destroy the town. Jesus rebukes them by telling them that they have no idea of what kind of spirit they are, and supposed to be (Luke 9:51-56).

Fire from heaven is lightning, and the lightning part is the damaging part. All visible lightning comes with audible thunder, but not all audible thunder comes with visible lightning ... Calling James and John 'Sons Of Thunder' when they propose to command fire from the sky, is highly satirical.

He doesn't praise the sons of Zebedee with a lofty-sounding 'Sons Of Thunder', but rather 'Thunder Boys', that is 'Bunch Of Windbags', or 'All Bark, No Bite'.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... vRzguJ97IW

The article also proposes that

• the first part of Boanerges - βοανεργες - is as likely derived from βους (bous; Latin bos) as it is from βοα (boa), meaning to shout or cry, or from the related verbs βοαω (boao) or βοη (boe), both also meaning to shout or cry. The Latin noun bos, means an ox or bull (hence the word bovine). And, sure enough, the Greek word for ox or bull is βους (bous). Ergo, to a Greek and Latin audience, the name Boanerges would look like it starts with the verb 'to low' (ie. the sound a cow makes).
  
  and the second part is derived from Ενεργεια (energeia) and/[or] its derivatives - ανενεργης (anenerges), meaning inefficacious; αυτενεργεια (autenergeia), meaning self-moving energy; or δυσενεργεια (dusenergeia), meaning lassitude (= weariness of body or mind; languor; lack of energy resulting from fatigue, says the Oxford Dictionary) Συνενεργης (sunenerges), meaning active simultaneously.

ie. Boanerges may mean 'Busy Lowing', that is "(They) Act Like Oxen", as much as it may mean 'Sons of Thunder' or *satire on 'sons of thunder'*.

Maybe 'Boanerges' is a double word-play??

[arnoldo]

Simon of Cyrene did not carry Jesus' cross. Who would have had a correct recollection of that? -- Gerd Ludemann, "Jesus after two thousand years", p. 107

If we take a step back and ask how likely it is that the early Christians (assuming they were spawned by the belief in a historical Jesus and his resurrection) would have been able to call upon any witnesses to what had happened to Jesus after his arrest in Gethsemane -- apart from the simple fact that he was crucified -- then the entire image of Simon Cyrenian carrying the cross collapses into imaginative fiction.

How is this not simply an argument from personal incredulity? (For the record, I dislike defending a position here and now that is conducive to a naïve historicity, but I do want to know what is behind the assumptions leading to the statements above.)

Ben.

FWIW, here is a little background info on the city of Cyrene.

Cyrene

The chief city of a group of five (called a Pentapolis) cities, which were founded on the coast of what, is now modern day Libya. Because it was the chief city, the land and the surrounding cities became known as “Cyrenaica.” Founded by Greeks fleeing a famine it became the home to a diverse population of indigenous Berbers and Jewish refugees. Romans and other African people groups were also a part of this population.

Several New Testament personages were from Cyrene, including Simon, who bore the cross of Christ on the way to Calvary. A group of men from Cyrene also helped to create a synagogue called “the Synagogue of the Freedmen,” of which the first Christian martyr, Stephen, was a part. Christians from Cyrene, including Simon, Alexander, Rufus and John Mark play an important role in spreading the gospel during the first century.

The ancient city became an object of interest to the Gaddafi regime before recent events and subsequent overthrow of his government.
The African Memory of Mark: Reassessing Early Church Tradition
By Thomas C. Oden

[TedM]

I am fatiguing from reading this thread (have skimmed 12 pages now) so will just ask what's on my mind at this point:

Other than Simon being a name that can be linked to probably 100 different Simon's of the time, what about the names Alexander and Rufus? Is there anything that ties those names back to these various theories that Mark was writing in code, puns, name-play, etc? In particular PK's theory that they could have been related to Judas the Galilean - do we have names of Zealots Alexander and Rufus? If not, then how compelling can any such argument be? Sure you can make some kind of compelling argument that includes the name Simon, but is there one that includes the names Alexander and Rufus? If not, how much weight does it really deserve to be given?

I've looked at the chiasm argument about names of sons of and Mother of, etc.. but can't get too excited about it either. I mean, if the person is younger wouldn't you expect him to be identified as "son of", and if the person is the parent of someone already introduced wouldn't you expect them to be identified as "mother of"?

[Peter Kirby]

I am fatiguing from reading this thread (have skimmed 12 pages now) so will just ask what's on my mind at this point:

Other than Simon being a name that can be linked to probably 100 different Simon's of the time, what about the names Alexander and Rufus? Is there anything that ties those names back to these various theories that Mark was writing in code, puns, name-play, etc? In particular PK's theory that they could have been related to Judas the Galilean - do we have names of Zealots Alexander and Rufus? If not, then how compelling can any such argument be? Sure you can make some kind of compelling argument that includes the name Simon, but is there one that includes the names Alexander and Rufus? If not, how much weight does it really deserve to be given?

I've looked at the chiasm argument about names of sons of and Mother of, etc.. but can't get too excited about it either. I mean, if the person is younger wouldn't you expect him to be identified as "son of", and if the person is the parent of someone already introduced wouldn't you expect them to be identified as "mother of"?

This may be of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1498

[TedM]

Thanks Peter. I'll check it out.