Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Reasons for the Unusual Suspect

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:On the other hand, is it unusual to mention the carrying of the cross? You say that you have faith that most such narratives do not mention this; but do you have evidence? How many such narratives have you compared? Chariton, at least, mentions it in Callirhoe 4.2:

They were duly brought out, chained together at foot and neck, each carrying his own cross.

But the narrative continues "The executioners added this grim public spectacle to the requisite penalty as a deterrent to others so minded." It is saying that making them carry their own stake was an added touch to scare the other slaves of the estate who were viewing the execution not to attempt a breakout especially if it involves killing someone in the process.
The entire mode of execution we call crucifixion was supposed to be a deterrent: every single shameful detail.
So, even if Jesus is required to carry his own stake, say because the Roman executioners believed he deserved it, how is mentioning the name and family of the man pressed into service to carry it for him relevant to the intent of the executioners, that is, to deter similar acts that occasioned Jesus' execution?
Mentioning the name and family of the man pressed into service is of no relevance whatsoever to the intent of the executioners, nor need they have even bothered to find out his name. (Nor does anything I am saying require it to be so.)
There is more not said here than said.
That is true of all written narratives without exception. Even a camera's lens, which should capture everything in line of sight within its visual field, has to be aimed and will by definition miss whatever it is not aimed at.
Is Simon of Cyrene thought to be implicated by association? Were his sons involved in whatever series of events that brought about Jesus death sentence, so that he should also be shamed along with Jesus and the two who were crucified with him?
If so, and Mark knew it, then Mark has deliberately worded his account to hide the fact, right?
Maybe the other two were his sons?
If they were, then Mark seems not to have known it; or, if he knew it, then he was playing with his readers' minds, right? Intentionally walking an informationally useless middle road between concealing the fact (by not actually naming the two thieves) and revealing it (by actually naming the two sons of Simon)?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3439
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Reasons for the Unusual Suspect

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
DCHindley wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:On the other hand, is it unusual to mention the carrying of the cross? ... Chariton, at least, mentions it in Callirhoe 4.2:

They were duly brought out, chained together at foot and neck, each carrying his own cross.

But the narrative continues "The executioners added this grim public spectacle to the requisite penalty as a deterrent to others so minded." It is saying that making them carry their own stake was an added touch to scare the other slaves of the estate who were viewing the execution not to attempt a breakout especially if it involves killing someone in the process.
The entire mode of execution we call crucifixion was supposed to be a deterrent: every single shameful detail.
Perhaps there was a difference between the ways Parthian and Greek/Roman executions on a stake took place. The condemned here were, after all, Greeks, and the carrying of their own execution stakes may have been a way of rubbing that fact in their noses. For the Romans it seems to be the norm. It is very much like ISIL forcing captured Iraqi army soldiers to dig their own graves (as seen on TV news).
Ben wrote:
DCH wrote:So, even if Jesus is required to carry his own stake, say because the Roman executioners believed he deserved it, how is mentioning the name and family of the man pressed into service to carry it for him relevant to the intent of the executioners, that is, to deter similar acts that occasioned Jesus' execution?
Mentioning the name and family of the man pressed into service is of no relevance whatsoever to the intent of the executioners, nor need they have even bothered to find out his name. (Nor does anything I am saying require it to be so.)
DCH wrote:Is Simon of Cyrene thought to be implicated by association? Were his sons involved in whatever series of events that brought about Jesus death sentence, so that he should also be shamed along with Jesus and the two who were crucified with him?
If so, and Mark knew it, then Mark has deliberately worded his account to hide the fact, right?
DCH wrote:Maybe the other two were his sons?
If they were, then Mark seems not to have known it; or, if he knew it, then he was playing with his readers' minds, right? Intentionally walking an informationally useless middle road between concealing the fact (by not actually naming the two thieves) and revealing it (by actually naming the two sons of Simon)?
The genre I would assign the Gospels to is not Bios but Apology. It may not be that Alexander & Rufus were well known to the Christian community, despite Rom 16:13 mentioning a Rufus, but were rather familiar to the imputed readers among Roman authorities. In other words, the author of Mark was aware of info that was infamous among his implied readers, and makes the effort to explain it away.

It doesn't matter whether an Alexander or a Rufus actually had anything to do with whatever series of events that led to Jesus' execution, just that the authorities to who Mark addressed his Apology (dressed as Bios) believed so. Shaming Simon for the actions of his sons would then make some sense (from the Roman POV), but would need "explaining" as mere coincidence (someone saw Simon on his way home and knew he had sons with the same name as those being executed with Jesus, and next thing you know Simon's made to suffer for that as if his sons were the executed ones).

If this seems far fetched, then we only have to look as far as modern US presidential politics or Joseph McCarthy era "witch trials" with their carefully choreographed hurling of charges and back stepping around hurled charges, true or not, because forthright answers might open other cans of worms.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Reasons for the Unusual Suspect

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:The genre I would assign the Gospels to is not Bios but Apology.
My own view of Mark's genre: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1724. I agree it is not a biography.
It may not be that Alexander & Rufus were well known to the Christian community, despite Rom 16:13 mentioning a Rufus, but were rather familiar to the imputed readers among Roman authorities.
In this case, Alexander and Rufus are still familiar (whether famously or infamously) to at least some of Mark's readers; that is certainly the essential element of what I am calling the plain reading of the text. It bears the additional complication of specifying (speculatively) exactly which of Mark's readers knew the names and why, but yes, it is certainly possible.

(I have long resisted the outright implication that Alexander and Rufus were Christians and that Rufus is the same man named at Romans 16.13, simply because Rufus was a very common name and because the suggestion that a person is known to Christians is not the same as the suggestion that a person is a Christian.)
If this seems far fetched, then we only have to look as far as modern US presidential politics or Joseph McCarthy era "witch trials" with their carefully choreographed hurling of charges and back stepping around hurled charges, true or not, because forthright answers might open other cans of worms.
It does not necessarily seem farfetched to me. What it is, rather, is simply more specific than my own reading, specific (in fact) in exactly the same way as the suggestion that Alexander and Rufus were Christians. Whereas I say simply: "Alexander and Rufus were known to Mark and his readership," a lot of commentators add: "known as Christians," while your reconstruction adds instead: "known as malefactors."

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13903
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by Giuseppe »

Whereas I say simply: "Alexander and Rufus were known to Mark and his readership," a lot of commentators add: "known as Christians," while your reconstruction adds instead: "known as malefactors."
Gasp! I have written in some previous comment in this thread:
Rufus and Alexander would replace the Pillars son of Zebedee (I wonder if they were the two crucified ;) !) just as Simon would replace Simon Peter. But the point of Mark is that the replacement doesn't mean by need more glory for them: they also are blind people (therefore they are named).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:
Whereas I say simply: "Alexander and Rufus were known to Mark and his readership," a lot of commentators add: "known as Christians," while your reconstruction adds instead: "known as malefactors."
Gasp! I have written in some previous comment in this thread:
Rufus and Alexander would replace the Pillars son of Zebedee (I wonder if they were the two crucified ;) !) just as Simon would replace Simon Peter. But the point of Mark is that the replacement doesn't mean by need more glory for them: they also are blind people (therefore they are named).
Indeed. And your reconstruction adds not only: "known as malefactors," but also a lot of super secret Marcan codes and ciphers with no known key.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13903
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by Giuseppe »

True, true. But the more sure thing I have realized is that written here:

Mark 13:15-16 :
15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.


Mark 15:
21 A passerby named Simon, who was from Cyrene, was coming in from the countryside just then, and the soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross. (Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus.)
This implies that Simon was a sinner in that moment, because he was going against the divine command of Mark 13:15-16.

And the midrash from 4 Baruch 5:15 confirms my presumed link (about the coming destruction of Jerusalem = the death of Jesus):

4 Baruch 5:15
"While he was seated, he saw a certain old man coming from the field, (εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ) and Abimelech says to him: "To you I say, old fellow, what city is this?" 16 And he said to him: "It is Jerusalem." 17 And Abimelech says to him: "Where is Jeremiah the priest, and Baruch the secretary, and all the people of this city, because I have not found them?" 18 And the elder said to him: "Are you not of this city, having remembered today Jeremiach, that you have asked concerning him, after so much time? 19 For Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people; for they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar the king, and with them is Jeremiah, proclaiming good news to them and teaching them the word."
Only, I have still no explanation for Rufus and Alexander. :confusedsmiley:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:True, true. But the more sure thing I have realized is that written here:

Mark 13:15-16 :
15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.


Mark 15:
21 A passerby named Simon, who was from Cyrene, was coming in from the countryside just then, and the soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross. (Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus.)
This implies that Simon was a sinner in that moment, because he was going against the divine command of Mark 13:15-16.

And the midrash from 4 Baruch 5:15 confirms my presumed link (about the coming destruction of Jerusalem = the death of Jesus):

4 Baruch 5:15
"While he was seated, he saw a certain old man coming from the field, (εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ) and Abimelech says to him: "To you I say, old fellow, what city is this?" 16 And he said to him: "It is Jerusalem." 17 And Abimelech says to him: "Where is Jeremiah the priest, and Baruch the secretary, and all the people of this city, because I have not found them?" 18 And the elder said to him: "Are you not of this city, having remembered today Jeremiach, that you have asked concerning him, after so much time? 19 For Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people; for they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar the king, and with them is Jeremiah, proclaiming good news to them and teaching them the word."
Only, I have still no explanation for Rufus and Alexander. :confusedsmiley:
I guess even wild fantasies have their limits.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
And now Joseph digressed...

I think in general that one of "Mark's" (author) sources is history, just not Jesus' history. Specifically, GMark does have some good parallels to Josephus:

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

Regarding the Verse at hand:

15:21
And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross. (ASV)
I've indicated before that it has good parallels to Josephus. In:

The Wars Of The Jews
Or The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem Book VII CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF ABOUT THREE YEARS. FROM THE TAKING OF JERUSALEM BY TITUS TO THE SEDITION AT CYRENE


Josephus is culminating the history of the Jews with the destruction of the Temple and than the postscript just as "Mark" culminates the history of Jesus with his destruction and than a postscript. The offending verse is likewise showing the ending of the Jesus' story and every name in it figures prominently in Book 7:

Simon
CHAPTER 2.

HOW TITUS EXHIBITED ALL SORTS OF SHOWS AT CESAREA PHILIPPI. CONCERNING SIMON THE TYRANT HOW HE WAS TAKEN, AND RESERVED FOR THE TRIUMPH.

...And here it was that Titus was informed of the seizure of Simon the son of Gioras, which was made after the manner following: This Simon, during the siege of Jerusalem, was in the upper city; but when the Roman army was gotten within the walls, and were laying the city waste, he then took the most faithful of his friends with him, and among them some that were stone-cutters, with those iron tools which belonged to their occupation, and as great a quantity of provisions as would suffice them for a long time, and let himself and all them down into a certain subterraneous cavern that was not visible above ground. Now, so far as had been digged of old, they went onward along it without disturbance; but where they met with solid earth, they dug a mine under ground, and this in hopes that they should be able to proceed so far as to rise from under ground in a safe place, and by that means escape. But when they came to make the experiment, they were disappointed of their hope; for the miners could make but small progress, and that with difficulty also; insomuch that their provisions, though they distributed them by measure, began to fail them. And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius Rufus (2) who was left to command the army there, came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Caesar know that he was taken. Thus did God bring this man to be punished for what bitter and savage tyranny he had exercised against his countrymen by those who were his worst enemies; and this while he was not subdued by violence, but voluntarily delivered himself up to them to be punished, and that on the very same account that he had laid false accusations against many Jews, as if they were falling away to the Romans, and had barbarously slain them for wicked actions do not escape the Divine anger, nor is justice too weak to punish offenders, but in time overtakes those that transgress its laws, and inflicts its punishments upon the wicked in a manner, so much more severe, as they expected to escape it on account of their not being punished immediately. (3) Simon was made sensible of this by falling under the indignation of the Romans. This rise of his out of the ground did also occasion the discovery of a great number of others Of the seditious at that time, who had hidden themselves under ground. But for Simon, he was brought to Caesar in bonds, when he was come back to that Cesarea which was on the seaside, who gave orders that he should be kept against that triumph which he was to celebrate at Rome upon this occasion.
Josephus shows Simon here as the most notable Roman resister at this point and he is seized by the Romans, just like "Mark's" Simon, with the Temple destruction theme in both backgrounds.

Cyrenian
CHAPTER 11.

CONCERNING JONATHAN, ONE OF THE SICARII, THAT STIRRED UP A SEDITION IN CYRENE, AND WAS A FALSE ACCUSER [OF THE INNOCENT].

1. AND now did the madness of the Sicarii, like a disease, reach as far as the cities of Cyrene; for one Jonathan, a vile person, and by trade a weaver, came thither and prevailed with no small number of the poorer sort to give ear to him; he also led them into the desert, upon promising them that he would show them signs and apparitions. And as for the other Jews of Cyrene, he concealed his knavery from them, and put tricks upon them; but those of the greatest dignity among them informed Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, of his march into the desert, and of the preparations he had made for it. So he sent out after him both horsemen and footmen, and easily overcame them, because they were unarmed men; of these many were slain in the fight, but some were taken alive, and brought to Catullus. As for Jonathan, the head of this plot, he fled away at that time; but upon a great and very diligent search, which was made all the country over for him, he was at last taken. And when he was brought to Catullus, he devised a way whereby he both escaped punishment himself, and afforded an occasion to Catullus of doing much mischief; for he falsely accused the richest men among the Jews, and said that they had put him upon what he did.
The final related Jewish revolt chronicled by Josephus just happens to be in Cyrene.

Alexander
CHAPTER 10.

THAT MANY OF THE SICARII FLED TO ALEXANDRIA ALSO AND WHAT DANGERS THEY WERE IN THERE; ON WHICH ACCOUNT THAT TEMPLE WHICH HAD FORMERLY BEEN BUILT BY ONIAS THE HIGH PRIEST WAS DESTROYED.

1. WHEN Masada was thus taken, the general left a garrison in the fortress to keep it, and he himself went away to Cesarea; for there were now no enemies left in the country, but it was all overthrown by so long a war. Yet did this war afford disturbances and dangerous disorders even in places very far remote from Judea; for still it came to pass that many Jews were slain at Alexandria in Egypt; for as many of the Sicarii as were able to fly thither, out of the seditious wars in Judea, were not content to have saved themselves, but must needs be undertaking to make new disturbances, and persuaded many of those that entertained them to assert their liberty, to esteem the Romans to be no better than themselves, and to look upon God as their only Lord and Master. But when part of the Jews of reputation opposed them, they slew some of them, and with the others they were very pressing in their exhortations to revolt from the Romans; but when the principal men of the senate saw what madness they were come to, they thought it no longer safe for themselves to overlook them. So they got all the Jews together to an assembly, and accused the madness of the Sicarii, and demonstrated that they had been the authors of all the evils that had come upon them. They said also that "these men, now they were run away from Judea, having no sure hope of escaping, because as soon as ever they shall be known, they will be soon destroyed by the Romans, they come hither and fill us full of those calamities which belong to them, while we have not been partakers with them in any of their sins." Accordingly, they exhorted the multitude to have a care, lest they should be brought to destruction by their means, and to make their apology to the Romans for what had been done, by delivering these men up to them; who being thus apprized of the greatness of the danger they were in, complied with what was proposed, and ran with great violence upon the Sicarii, and seized upon them; and indeed six hundred of them were caught immediately: but as to all those that fled into Egypt (18) and to the Egyptian Thebes, it was not long ere they were caught also, and brought back, whose courage, or whether we ought to call it madness, or hardiness in their opinions, every body was amazed at. For when all sorts of torments and vexations of their bodies that could be devised were made use of to them, they could not get any one of them to comply so far as to confess, or seem to confess, that Caesar was their lord; but they preserved their own opinion, in spite of all the distress they were brought to, as if they received these torments and the fire itself with bodies insensible of pain, and with a soul that in a manner rejoiced under them. But what was most of all astonishing to the beholders was the courage of the children; for not one of these children was so far overcome by these torments, as to name Caesar for their lord. So far does the strength of the courage [of the soul] prevail over the weakness of the body.

2. Now Lupus did then govern Alexandria, who presently sent Caesar word of this commotion; who having in suspicion the restless temper of the Jews for innovation, and being afraid lest they should get together again, and persuade some others to join with them, gave orders to Lupus to demolish that Jewish temple which was in the region called Onion, (19) and was in Egypt, which was built and had its denomination from the occasion following: Onias, the son of Simon, one of the Jewish high priests fled from Antiochus the king of Syria, when he made war with the Jews, and came to Alexandria; and as Ptolemy received him very kindly, on account of hatred to Antiochus, he assured him, that if he would comply with his proposal, he would bring all the Jews to his assistance; and when the king agreed to do it so far as he was able, he desired him to give him leave to build a temple some where in Egypt, and to worship God according to the customs of his own country; for that the Jews would then be so much readier to fight against Antiochus who had laid waste the temple at Jerusalem, and that they would then come to him with greater good-will; and that, by granting them liberty of conscience, very many of them would come over to him.
Josephus chronicles two Jewish disasters after Jerusalem outside of Israel, Cyrenica and Alexandria, both caused by Sciari. Josephus describes the Sciari as traitors just as "Mark" describes Escariot as the traitor.

Rufus

As indicated above, Rufus just happened to be the Roman commander in Israel at the time:
Terentius Rufus (2) who was left to command the army there
So every name used in 15:21 figures prominently in Josephus' wrap up Book 7 with a similar general setting of the destruction/predicted destruction of the Temple and themes of the Jews making the wrong choice.

Than you have the chaser that just as Josephus, son of Matthias, buries the Jewish history, so too does Joseph of Ari Matthias bury "Mark's" Jews' history.


Joseph Apo Matthias

The New Porphyry
Last edited by JoeWallack on Sun May 01, 2016 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8875
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by MrMacSon »

^ That's very 'cloak and dagger' Joe :clap:

and wasn't the Last Supper at the home of a Simon, a Pharisee? Was that Simon Judas Iscariot's father?

John 13:2,26
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun May 01, 2016 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:So every name used in 15:21 figures prominently in Josephus' wrap up Chapter 7 with a similar general setting of the destruction/predicted destruction of the Temple and themes of the Jews making the wrong choice.
Thanks, Joe. In your estimation, was this Mark's little in-joke, and he did not care whether his readers picked up on it or not? Or did he expect them to follow the line of inquiry you lay out above? Or did they already know it all in advance, and 15.21 was just a sly confirmation?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply