Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Peter Kirby]

We could probably extend the logic of this thought to other persons in the narrative. Surely there must have been others in the audience who had met Jesus or some of the disciples or named persons. Would the author have been tempted to name others in the audience who had done so and somehow have woven them into the narrative, too?

I don't mean this as a vague hypothetical. It is valid to set out on the table what each hypothesis would lead us to expect. Testing predictions is a necessary part of the argument.

Tradition says the author knew Peter. If so, perhaps the author would have written himself in?

"As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew... Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. (We, too, were called to follow him when we heard Simon.)" (If this seems completely farfetched, something not unlike this is visible precisely in John 19 and 21--reference to some kind of a witness and connection to Jesus known to 'we,' 'us.')

(Then again, some say that's who the 'young man' in 14:51 is... )

[Blood]

Where do Papias and Irenaeus assert that Mark used a Hebrew original of Matthew?

Loosely reinterpreted. Irenaeus says that Matthew's gospel was first written in Hebrew and he got that information from Papias and Papias says that Mark had the same stories as the/that Hebrew gospel ('that' if you believe Irenaeus's spin on Papias) but in the wrong order.

This item is highly relevant, I think, for demonstrating the Catholics' insecurity about their non-Jewishness at a very early stage. The need to invent lies about "Hebrew originals" is a defensive posture, in terms of establishing their supposed "street cred"/"authenticity" (unlike rival groups of Marcionites or Gnostics).

There were no "Hebrew originals," except in the brain of Papias and the numbskulls who believed him. Like Maurice Casey.

[DCHindley]

Why is the name of the father mentioned first in Mark 10:46? Because Daddy Timaeus was known within the Markan community?

Mark 10:46
... ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν
... the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, blind beggar was sitting beside the way

Why not going for this? It would be the same logic!

I would have guessed it was spelled out because Bartimaeus actually means, in Aramaic, Bar (son of) Timaeus. I would not have thought that "Bartimaeus" was this person's everyday name, but it does seem strange to me that the author of Mark introduces an unnamed son of Timaeus, then gives a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic phrase. It would suggest, though, that the person of Timaeus (the father) was recognizable to the intended reader, although the name of Timaeus' son not so much.

I do note that in Against Apion, Josephus says

"74 Now, ... Manetho, in the second book of his Egyptian History, writes concerning us [Hebrews] in the following manner: I will set down his very words, as if I were to bring the very man himself into a court for a witness:--
75 "There was a king of ours, whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them.
76 So when they had gotten those who governed us under their power, they afterward burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous manner: nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery. ...

So, this would imply that Bar Timaeus could be an euphemism for the "son of an Egyptian not of Hebrew extraction".

Unless he is referring to a writer by the name Timaeus that Josephus mentions in Against Apion chapters 16,17 & 122, who seems to be a Greek writing about Greeks and Egyptians. Why that might make this Bar Timaeus notable I am not sure.

Philo speaks of Plato's dialogue The Timaeus in On the Eternity of the World (De aeternitate mundi) sections 13, 25 & 141.

Since this Bar Timaeus in the gospel of Mark was a blind beggar, it may be a snide reference to Plato's cosmology (and perhaps Philo's adaptation of it) being in need of healing through Christ.

Note that Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, says

5:4 "Does not your [i.e., Trypho's] assertion agree with what Plato taught in his Timaeus concerning the world, namely, that it can be destroyed since it is a created thing, but that it will not be destroyed or be destined for destruction since such is the will of God? Don't you think that the same thing could be said of the soul and, in short, of all other creatures? For, whatever exists or will exist after God has a nature subject to corruption, and therefore capable of complete annihilation, for only God is unbegotten and incorruptible. For this reason He is God, and all other things after Him are created and corruptible. ... 5:6 We must conclude, therefore, that there are not many beings that are unbegotten, for, if there were some difference between them, you could not, no matter how you searched, find the cause of such difference; but, after sending your thought always to infinity, you would finally become tired and have to stop before the one Unbegotten and declare that He is the cause of all things.

While this displays a much more positive picture of Plato's Timaeus, it may be saying the same thing.

In the Timaeus, it says

"In order then that the world might be solitary, like the perfect animal, the creator made not two worlds or an infinite number of them; but there is and ever will be one only-begotten and created heaven. ... We may now say that our discourse about the nature of the universe has an end. The world has received animals, mortal and immortal, and is fulfilled with them, and has become a visible animal containing the visible — the sensible God who is the image of the intellectual, the greatest, best, fairest, most perfect — the one only begotten heaven." http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

So, in this translation Plato in the Timaeus states that the universe is unbegotten. Justin may have chosen to overlook this and rather says that in the Timaeus, it is actually God himself who is unbegotten.

If the universe is unbegotten, then Genesis must be wrong that God created it. Since that is impossible to an early Christian weaned on the Greek translation of the Judean scriptures, then Justin, much like Philo, re-interpreted Plato's Timaeus so that it is God who is unbegotten, not the universe which was created by him, while the author of the gospel of Mark took a swipe at Plato (and by association Philo) by suggesting that Christ is the unbegotten one that created the universe, not that the universe is itself unbegotten (Plato) or that an Unbegotten God had created it (Philo).

DCH

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

If the universe is unbegotten, then Genesis must be wrong that God created it. Since that is impossible to an early Christian weaned on the Greek translation of the Judean scriptures, then Justin, much like Philo, re-interpreted Plato's Timaeus so that it is God who is unbegotten, not the universe which was created by him, while the author of the gospel of Mark took a swipe at Plato (and by association Philo) by suggesting that Christ is the unbegotten one that created the universe, not that the universe is itself unbegotten (Plato) or that an Unbegotten God had created it (Philo).

DCH

A fine explaining of this point. Thanks David

[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.

Now I think about it, I'm beginning to feel a little silly, certainly forgetful/naive, in even taking the time to rationalize alternative possibilities built upon the assumption of the plausibility of Mark's depiction of that walk along the Via Dolorosa.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

[Ulan]

If the universe is unbegotten, then Genesis must be wrong that God created it. Since that is impossible to an early Christian weaned on the Greek translation of the Judean scriptures, then Justin, much like Philo, re-interpreted Plato's Timaeus so that it is God who is unbegotten, not the universe which was created by him, while the author of the gospel of Mark took a swipe at Plato (and by association Philo) by suggesting that Christ is the unbegotten one that created the universe, not that the universe is itself unbegotten (Plato) or that an Unbegotten God had created it (Philo).

DCH

A fine explaining of this point. Thanks David

You don't even have to go that far behind the words regarding this "blind Bartimaeus" passage. Plato's Timaeus also contains the direct discussion of the relationship of vision and soul:

"When the light of day surrounds the stream of vision, then like falls upon like, and they coalesce, and one body is formed by natural affinity in the line of vision, wherever the light that falls from within meets with an external object. And the whole stream of vision, being similarly affected in virtue of similarity, diffuses the motions of what it touches or what touches it over the whole body, until they reach the soul, causing that perception which we call sight. But when night comes on and the external and kindred fire departs, then the stream of vision is cut off; for going forth to an unlike element it is changed and extinguished, being no longer of one nature with the surrounding atmosphere which is now deprived of fire: and so the eye no longer sees, and we feel disposed to sleep."

This may just be a discussion of physical vision in the Platonic sense compared to spiritual vision as Mark sees it. In the end, the thrust is the same, against Platonic ideas.

[ph2ter]

Just an idea.

Rom 16:13 Greet Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

Mark 15:21 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.

If Paul and Rufus had the same mother (if we take the account of Paul literally), and if Rufus according to Mark had the brother called Alexander, then Paul = Alexander.
Alexander Paulus = Alexander the Small (the meaning of Roman Paulus is 'small' or 'humble') is the exact opposite of Alexander the Great.

So, maybe Mark 15:21 is a cryptic reference to Paul.

[Secret Alias]

And look at Irenaeus's description of the gospel of Mark it seems overtly Platonic from the same material:

Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"--pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service.(1) Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (kaqolikai) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings heavenly kingdom.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.)

Peter Kirby wondered aloud at some point how realistic it is for Roman soldiers to have conscripted someone to carry the cross for a criminal. Here is what I have on that so far (bearing in mind that arguments against verisimilitude are also arguments against historicity, but arguments for verisimilitude are not necessarily arguments for historicity).

Con.

Plutarch, On Those Who Are Punished by the Deity Late (Moralia) 9:

And as every malefactor about to pay the penalty of his crime in his person bears his cross, so vice fabricates for itself each of its own torments, being the terrible author of its own misery in life, wherein in addition to shame it has frequent fears and fierce passions and endless remorse and anxiety.

Pro.

Juvenal, satire 16 (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juven ... res_16.htm):

Let us first consider the benefits common to all soldiers, of which not the least is this, that no civilian will dare to thrash you; if thrashed himself, he must hold his tongue, and not venture to exhibit to the Praetor the teeth that have been knocked out, or the black and blue lumps upon his face, or the one eye left which the doctor holds out no hope of saving. If he seek redress, he has appointed for him as judge a hob-nailed centurion with a row of jurors with brawny calves sitting before a big bench. For the old camp law and the rule of Camillus still holds good which forbids a soldier to attend court outside the camp, and at a distance from the standards. "Most right and proper it is," you say, "that a centurion should pass sentence on a soldier; nor shall I fail of satisfaction if I make good my case." But then the whole cohort will be your enemies; all the maniples will agree as one man in applying a cure to the redress you have received by giving you a thrashing which shall be worse than the first. So, as you possess a pair of legs, you must have a mulish brain worthy of the eloquent Vagellius to provoke so many jack-boots, and all those thousands of hobnails. And besides who would venture so far from the city? Who would be such a Pylades 2 as to go inside the rampart? Better dry your eyes at once, and not importune friends who will but make excuses. When the judge has called for witnesses, let the man, whoever he be, who saw the assault dare to say, "I saw it," and I will deem him worthy of the beard and long hair of our forefathers. Sooner will you find a false witness against a civilian than one who will tell the truth against the interest and the honour of a soldier.

Epictetus, Discourse 4.1:

You must treat your whole body like a poor ass, with its burden on its back, going with you just so far as it may, and so far as it is given you; but if the king's service calls, and a soldier lays hands on it, let it go, do not resist or murmur; if you do, you will only get a flogging and lose your poor ass all the same.

Matthew 5.41:

And whoever shall compel [αγγαρευσει] you to go one mile, go with him two.

On the one hand, it seems that it was customary for criminals to bear their own crosses. On the other hand, what if a criminal were physically incapable of doing that? It must have happened. What would happen then? Apparently soldiers could (at least sometimes) beat people up with impunity and confiscate their donkeys, and according to Matthew press people into at least a measure of service.

Ben.