This is a companion thread to the thread "Why Jesus Cut off the Ear of the High Priest" viewtopic.php?f=3&t=988. As with that proposal, it takes what is now gibberish and shows how with very small, logical changes, we get a logical story that fits with all the surrounding material.
We begin by noting how Mark discusses the mockery of Jesus by the Roman soldiers:
This makes sense. The Roman soldiers did not particularly like Jewish criminals. We might expect that the soldiers would find more ways to torment Jesus as they lead him to crucifixion. This is in fact what seems to happen in the gospel of John:16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
Carrying his own cross can be seen as another torment to Jesus. However, what we get from Mark (later copied by Matthew and Luke) makes no sense whatsoever.So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol'gotha
There are at least four things I find crazy about this:21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
1. Mark’s story takes place mainly in and around the Roman province of Judea. The furthest place he names from Jerusalem are the cities of Tyre and Sidon, about 100 and 125 miles North. Cyrene was nearly 1000 miles West in Libya. Cyrene only became famous around 115 CE when Jews rebelled and allegedly according to Cassius Dio massacred 200,000 Roman citizens.
2. Simon from Cyrene is entirely unknown. Mentioning his children as Alexander and Rufus, both common names at the time is ridiculous as they are entirely unknown too. Albeit, there is a Rufus named in Talmudic sources as Titus Aniosrufus, or Tyrannus Rufus and he is alleged to have ploughed the city of Jerusalem, after either the First Jewish Roman War (67-73) or the Bar Kochkbar War (132-135). There is no indication that this Rufus had a brother named Alexander. They are all neither mentioned before or after this in any story.
3. There is no reason given for Simon carrying the cross. Why him? What did he do that he was selected? Was he a friend of Jesus? Was he particularly strong and could carry a heavy stake?
4. Crucifixion was done by a number of different devices. There was no particular “cross” that one could carry to be executed on. The word "stake" would be better here, perhaps. Stakes were basically fence posts. There were thousands of them all over the place and it really doesn't matter who carries them. Think of an electrocution of a criminal. When was the last time that you read in a story of an execution about the people who installed the electric chair?
There is one clue that perhaps allows us to reconstruct what was originally in this place instead of the incomprehensible nonsense that now exists. We may look for the nearest previous use of the name Simon? In the previous chapter, Mark 14, we read:
There is no other mention of Simon the Leper. Why was Jesus staying at the house of a Leper? No explanation is given. Like Simon the Cyrene, Simon the Leper is never mentioned again.3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar...
The mention of Simon the Leper is perhaps an important clue with what actually went on with Simon of Cyrene. If we assume that Simon the Leper and Simon the Cyrene are one and the same then we can get some sense out of the two incomprehensible passages. Simon the Leper came in from the countryside (Bethany). Jesus had been staying at his house, so there was a relationship between them.
Another consideration is that the place Golgotha is unknown before this passage, although it is apparently right outside the gates of Jerusalem. However, Jeremiah 31:39 mentions places called Gareb and Goath that are just outside the gates of Jerusalem:
Jeremiah is talking about the rebuilding of a new Jerusalem in this passage. Gareb means hill of lepers and goath’s meaning is indeterminable, but it has been associated with the place David buried the head of Goliath and Golgotha.and the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it on the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
We can now reconstruct the original passage somewhat –
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon the Leper, the father of Lazarus and Mary, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced Jesus to carry him. They brought Jesus to the place called Gareb (the hill of the lepers). They continued to Goath.
With this revision, the passages about Simon the Leper and Simon of Cyrene make sense, but we get the added bonus of explaining how the name Golgotha came about. Gareb was Hill of the Lepers and apparently Goath was where Goliath of Gath’s head was buried by King David. The combination of Gareb and Goath led to “Golgotha” in the version of the story in Mark.
Probably when producing this passage about Jesus curing a leper, the original writers had in mind the story of the curing of Naaman by the prophet Elisha.
Note that Naaman undergoes a resurrection of the flesh as it becomes “like unto the flesh of a little child,” thus forshadowing Jesus’ resurrection.Kings 2:5
9 So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha.
10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.
Instead of two passages that make no sense, we now have two passages that make good sense and reference Hebrew scriptures.
We can take this a step further. Jesus was staying at the house of Simon the Leper and Jesus carries him just before his death. This would indicate a very strong relationship between them. One can postulate that Simon the Leper was actually Jesus' father in the original material. Jesus carries his father to the Hill of Lepers (Gareb) before going to be executed at Goath (where David buried Goliath).
The action would also be a reference to Aeneas carrying his father Anchises outside Troy to the nearby hills. It would show Jesus' piety to his Earthly father.
Thus we can reconstruct the passage this way.
The combination of Gareb and Goath led to “Golgotha” in the revised version of the text in Mark. Later Christians erased the reference of Simon the Leper being the father of Jesus and just made him into some anonymous man from Cyrene. The original story was meant to be a reference to Elisha curing Naaman the Leper, and Aeneas carrying his father outside Troy (showing Jesus was a dutiful son).Simon the Leper, the father of Lazarus and Jesus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced Jesus to carry him to the place called Gareb (the hill of the lepers). They continued to Goath.
The idea of Jesus carrying his own father before his execution makes much more sense than the trivial observation that he carried his own stake before his execution. It also explains what Jesus was doing in the house of Simon the Leper and why he raised Lazarus. Lazarus was his brother.
This also explains why Lazarus is portrayed as a Leper in the parable at Luke 16:19-31:
Lazarus was the son of the leper, Simon the leper, and thus was also a leper; he was the brother of Jesus and that is why he also rose from the dead.19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell[a] from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
Through this revision of the text to make it comprehensible and logically and dramatically readable, we get to see an earlier version of the Jesus story quite different than the one Mark wrote.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin