I would like to explore this point in hope of assessing its use as a potential indicator of historicity. Let me ask a few probing questions:Peter Kirby wrote:(6) In the Gospel of Mark 15:21, the man named Simon of Cyrene is said to be "the father of Alexander and Rufus," an otherwise unexplained detail not picked up by the writers of Matthew and Luke. One very simple explanation for this is that Alexander and Rufus were known to the audience and that they were actual men who were the sons of Simon. This would then imply the existence of Simon as someone who was present during the crucifixion, and, thus, a historical crucifixion of Jesus.
- I think Peter calls this detail otherwise unexplained at least partly because Simon is already identified as being of Cyrene, which is usually enough of an identifier for an ancient author, so the detail about Alexander and Rufus seems gratuitous. (If this has nothing to do with why you called it that, Peter, I apologize; nevertheless, I would like to see it addressed if possible.) So... are there any other likely reasons this detail might have been included? If its purpose is not to connect with readers who may actually know one or the other of these two men, what is its purpose?
- Is the Rufus mentioned in Mark 15.21 the same as the Rufus mentioned in Romans 16.13? Mark is often argued (perhaps sometimes argued, often assumed) to have a Roman origin, after all. Does Romans 16.13 inform our assessment of this datum at all? Or is it too tenuous a point to count for anything?
- What about the somewhat similar situation when it comes to Mary the mother of James and Joseph in Mark 15.40, 47; 16.1? I say somewhat similar because of course both Matthew and Luke copy over this datum (in 27.56 and 24.10, respectively), whereas they do not copy over Alexander and Rufus; also, Mary lacks any other identifier in the text. (Perhaps the presence of two Maries, whereas there is only one Simon and thus no grounds for confusion in his case, might have something to do with Matthew and Luke using James and Joseph; perhaps Matthew and Luke had no independent idea who this Mary was, and were forced to use the same identifier for her as their source.) Nevertheless, identifying Mary by her sons instead of by her husband or father or place of origin or what not seems conceptually the same as identifying Simon by his sons, right? Does this similarity inform our assessment of Simon and his sons as a historical datum? Does the Marcan readership know of James and Joseph, too?
Ben.