=======================================
Simon from Cyrene
An historical figure or a literary figure?
Peter Kirby has argued, in his thread, The Best Case for Jesus, that because gMark mentions two sons of Simon, Alexander and Rufus, when gMark had no need to do such, that this would suggest these three gospel figures are historical figures not figures intended to be viewed symbolically. Especially so as neither gMatthew nor gLuke make mention of the two sons of Simon. Additionally, Peter points out that Paul mentions a figure by the name of Rufus.
Peter makes mention of Carrier’s position on Simon of Cyrene and his two sons. Carrier thinks gMark is using symbolism and that the two ‘sons’ could be a reference to Alexander the Great and Musonius Rufus. Peter points out that the long time period between these two figures - over 300 years - makes Carrier’s view a ‘bit of a stretch’. (Alexander died 323 b.c.e. and Rufus born around 20/30 c.e.).
Carrier mentions a ‘violent rebellion’ in Cyrene and also ‘hedonistic philosophy’ that the city was known for. War and philosophy. Carrier uses these two elements as a means to identify the two symbolic sons of Simon. Carrier runs with an interpretation of Simon’s two sons that views Alexander the Great as a military conqueror and Rufus as a ‘famous pacifist’. However, gMark gives no reason to suggest that the two sons were representing two very different characters.
While Carrier’s attempt to interpret the Simon of Cyrene symbolism in gMark is welcome - the fault-lines in his approach are evident. Peter’s attempt to read the Simon of Cyrene story as historical is circular. i.e. it is using NT elements to support NT elements.
If, as Carrier suggests, and which I support, gMark is using symbolism in the story he tells - then the Simon story might well be saying something other than what a helpful man Simon was. But what interpretation of that symbolism would throw light on the gospel Jesus crucifixion story? Does Alexander the Great or Musonius Rufus throw light on the gospel crucifixion story? Does attempting to view Simon and his two sons as historical figures throw light on the gospel crucifixion story? I don’t think so.
Simon carrying the cross of Jesus suggests, at the very least, that the action of carrying the cross was to share in that crucifixion story. To be part of it; to carry, to share, the responsibility that led to that situation.
Cyrene, from which Simon came, was a city where insurrection against Rome had taken place.
Cyrene was also the destination of many "Sicari" dagger men who fled the Roman legions at the time of the Jewish Revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Cyrene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Cyrene
In 74 BC Cyrene was created a Roman province; but, whereas under the Ptolemies the Jewish inhabitants had enjoyed equal rights, they now found themselves increasingly oppressed by the now autonomous and much larger Greek population. Tensions came to a head in the insurrection of the Jews of Cyrene under Vespasian (73 AD, the First Roman-Jewish War)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrene,_Libya#Roman_period......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrene,_Libya#Roman_period......
Josephus on insurrection in Cyrene:
War: book 7
437 The madness of the Sicarii infected even the cities around Cyrene. 438 A rogue named Jonathan, a weaver by trade, took refuge there and winning the attention of a number of the poorer class he led them out into the desert with the promise of showing them signs and visions. 439 He concealed his knavery from the others and fooled them, but the highest ranking the Jews of Cyrene told Catullus, the ruler of the Libyan Pentapolis, about his exodus and what he planned for it. 440 So he sent out cavalry and infantry in pursuit, and defeated them easily, as they were unarmed. Many of them were killed in the fight, and some were taken alive and brought to Catullus. 441 The leader of this affair, Jonathan, escaped for a time, but after a thorough search of the whole country for him was finally captured. When he was brought to Catullus, he found a way to escape punishment himself but which caused Catullus to do a large amount of harm, 442 for he falsely accused the richest of the Jews of being the instigators of the whole thing.
443 Catullus easily accepted his calumnies and greatly exaggerated the matter with theatrical cries, to give himself the appearance of putting an end to some Jewish war. 444 But what was worse, not only did he give easy credence to his stories, but he taught the Sicarii to accuse men falsely. 445 He told this Jonathan to indict a Jew called Alexander, with whom he had formerly quarreled and openly professed to hate, and to involve his wife Berenice along with him. These were his first victims, and after them he killed all the rich and well-to-do, three thousand in all, 446 reckoning he could safely do, since he confiscated their property and added them to Caesar's revenues.
<snip>
But Vespasian still had some suspicion about the matter and enquired how far it was true, and when he understood that the accusation against the Jews was an unjust one, at the request of Titus he acquitted them, and sentence Jonathan as he deserved, for he was first tortured and then burned alive.
437 The madness of the Sicarii infected even the cities around Cyrene. 438 A rogue named Jonathan, a weaver by trade, took refuge there and winning the attention of a number of the poorer class he led them out into the desert with the promise of showing them signs and visions. 439 He concealed his knavery from the others and fooled them, but the highest ranking the Jews of Cyrene told Catullus, the ruler of the Libyan Pentapolis, about his exodus and what he planned for it. 440 So he sent out cavalry and infantry in pursuit, and defeated them easily, as they were unarmed. Many of them were killed in the fight, and some were taken alive and brought to Catullus. 441 The leader of this affair, Jonathan, escaped for a time, but after a thorough search of the whole country for him was finally captured. When he was brought to Catullus, he found a way to escape punishment himself but which caused Catullus to do a large amount of harm, 442 for he falsely accused the richest of the Jews of being the instigators of the whole thing.
443 Catullus easily accepted his calumnies and greatly exaggerated the matter with theatrical cries, to give himself the appearance of putting an end to some Jewish war. 444 But what was worse, not only did he give easy credence to his stories, but he taught the Sicarii to accuse men falsely. 445 He told this Jonathan to indict a Jew called Alexander, with whom he had formerly quarreled and openly professed to hate, and to involve his wife Berenice along with him. These were his first victims, and after them he killed all the rich and well-to-do, three thousand in all, 446 reckoning he could safely do, since he confiscated their property and added them to Caesar's revenues.
<snip>
But Vespasian still had some suspicion about the matter and enquired how far it was true, and when he understood that the accusation against the Jews was an unjust one, at the request of Titus he acquitted them, and sentence Jonathan as he deserved, for he was first tortured and then burned alive.
High Priest Ishmael retained in Rome.
With the permission of Festus, they sent ten of their leading men to Nero, with Ismael the high priest and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasury. 195 When Nero heard what they had to say, he forgave what they had already done, and also allowed them to let stand the wall they had built. This was granted to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman and had requested him for these favours and told the ten envoys to go on home, while she kept Helcias and Ismael with herself as hostages. 196 When the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, surnamed Cabi, son of Simon the former high priest.
Ant: book 20
Ant: book 20
At the Jewish/Roman War
Among them were ................ three of high priestly stock, sons of the Ishmael who was beheaded in Cyrene
War: book 6 ch.2
War: book 6 ch.2
ISHMAEL BEN PHABI (FIABI) II.
High priest under Agrippa II.; not to be identified (as by Grätz and Schürer) with the high priest of the same name who was appointed by Valerius Gratus and who officiated during 15-16 of the common era. Ishmael was a worthy successor of the high priest Phinehas. He was appointed to the office by Agrippa in the year 59, and enjoyed the sympathy of the people. He was very rich; his mother made him, for the Day of Atonement, a priestly robe which cost 100 minæ. Ishmael at first followed the Sadducean method of burning the sacrificial red heifer, but finally authorized the procedure according to the Pharisaic teaching. Being one of the foremost ten citizens of Jerusalem sent on an embassy to Emperor Nero, he was detained by the empress at Rome as a hostage. He was beheaded in Cyrene after the destruction of Jerusalem, and is glorified by the Mishnah teachers (Parah iii. 5; Soṭah ix. 15; Pes. 57a; Yoma 35b).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... i-fiabi-ii
High priest under Agrippa II.; not to be identified (as by Grätz and Schürer) with the high priest of the same name who was appointed by Valerius Gratus and who officiated during 15-16 of the common era. Ishmael was a worthy successor of the high priest Phinehas. He was appointed to the office by Agrippa in the year 59, and enjoyed the sympathy of the people. He was very rich; his mother made him, for the Day of Atonement, a priestly robe which cost 100 minæ. Ishmael at first followed the Sadducean method of burning the sacrificial red heifer, but finally authorized the procedure according to the Pharisaic teaching. Being one of the foremost ten citizens of Jerusalem sent on an embassy to Emperor Nero, he was detained by the empress at Rome as a hostage. He was beheaded in Cyrene after the destruction of Jerusalem, and is glorified by the Mishnah teachers (Parah iii. 5; Soṭah ix. 15; Pes. 57a; Yoma 35b).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... i-fiabi-ii
The Jews in Cyrene were involved in an insurrection against Rome in 73 c.e. There was an earlier insurrection against Rome in Jerusalem in 40 b.c.e., that led 3 years later to the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. Cassius Dio indicates that Antigonus was hung on a cross and scourged prior to being executed/beheaded. The gospel of Luke places its crucifixion story somewhere after the 15th year of Tiberius. Depending on what date one ascribes to this - 30 or 33 c.e., a 70 year period is evident from the events of 40 -37 b.c.e. This 70 year period suggests that it is the insurrection of 40 b.c.e. and it’s aftermath in 37 b.c.e., that is the primary focus of gMark’s story about Simon from Cyrene and his two sons. (70 years being a far more relevant symbolic number than Carrier’s 300 plus years between Alexander the Great and Rufus….)
(Yes, events in Cyrene regarding the beheading of a Jewish High Priest during a time of insurrection are relevant in so much that they reflect the far more important historical events of 40 – 37 b.c.e. - Ishmael, a Jewish High Priest, beheaded in a foreign city. Antigonus, the last King and High Priest, had earlier been beheaded in a foreign city: Antioch.)
The connection of Simon of Cyrene to the crucifixion story, the history of that city involving an insurrection of Jews and the beheading of a Jewish High Priest, indicates that the Jesus crucifixion story involves insurrection against Rome and the execution of a High Priest.
Options:
(1) Simon of Cyrene, in the gospel story, is reflecting only events of a Jewish insurrection of 70/73 c.e. and gMark is backdating them to the time of Pilate.
(2) Simon of Cyrene, in the gospel story, indicates that the crucified Jesus figure was connected to a zealot movement - as in Reza Aslan's Zealot. However, no insurrection against Rome is noted for that time period in Judea.
(3) Simon from Cyrene, in the gospel story, is reference to the earlier insurrection of 40 b.c.e. - an insurrection that led, 3 years later, to the execution of the last King of the Jews. Antigonus being hung on a cross and scourged. It is this event that has been, as it were, brought forward by gMark, into the gospel Jesus story.
Who shared the responsibility for the insurrection of 40 b.c.e.? Aristobulus II. Yes the man was dead - but it was his legacy that ran on with his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus. Both sons being executed by Rome. Thus, Simon of Cyrene and his two sons are symbolic figures that reflect the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus.
The above is what one can gain by ditching the historicist interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. That story is set in the time of Pilate. The setting of the story is one thing. The history reflected in that story something else entirely i.e. history can cover a far wider time frame than the story setting to which its reflection is pinned. Historical events that the gospel writers deem important to have reflected in their story can be historical events from earlier or later time periods than the time of Pilate. i.e. historical events can be backdated and also earlier events brought forward to the gospel time frame of Pilate.
Indeed, the history of Antigonus is not the only historical event that is reflected in the gospel story. But it is the historical event that is reflected in the Jesus crucifixion story.
The above is my interpretation of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus. This interpretation does throw light upon the gospel crucifixion story. The gospel Jesus figure was executed for rebellion, for insurrection against Rome. Yes, the gospel story does play down this element of it’s composite Jesus figure. But it is an undercurrent to the Jesus story that can’t be ignored if seeking early Christian history is our aim.
================
added later
Richard Carrier's theory re Simon, from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is outlined on pages 446 - 451 of his book: On the Historicity of Jesus. Page 450 has a chart detailing his theory.
