Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Mon May 09, 2016 7:01 am

JW:
Early supposed Christian martyrs killed by crucifixion. Who carried the stake?:

Identification Carrier? Commentary
The Acts of Peter
And while Peter thus spake, and all the brethren wept, behold four soldiers took him and led him unto Agrippa. And he in his madness (disease) commanded him to be crucified on an accusation of godlessness.

The whole multitude of the brethren therefore ran together, both of rich and poor, orphans and widows, weak and strong, desiring to see and to rescue Peter, while the people shouted with one voice, and would not be silenced: What wrong hath Peter done, O Agrippa? Wherein hath he hurt thee? tell the Romans! And others said: We fear lest if this man die, his Lord destroy us all.

And Peter when he came unto the place stilled the people and said: Ye men that are soldiers of Christ! ye men that hope in Christ! remember the signs and wonders which ye have seen wrought through me, remember the compassion of God, how many cures he hath wrought for you. Wait for him that cometh and shall reward every man according to his doings. And now be ye not bitter against Agrippa; for he is the minister of his father's working. And this cometh to pass at all events, for the Lord hath manifested unto me that which befalleth. But why delay I and draw not near unto the cross?

XXXVII. And having approached and standing by the cross
No one. -
The Acts of Philip
And the apostles were arrested, 121 and scourged and dragged to the temple, 122 and shut up in it (with the leopard and the kid. These are omitted in the principal text, but constantly occur in another recension: rightly, of course). 123 The people and priests came and demanded vengeance on the sorcerers. 124 The proconsul was afraid of his wife, for he had been almost blinded by a wonderful light when he looked through the window at her when praying. 125 They stripped and searched the apostles for charms, and pierced Philip's ankles and thighs and hung him head downward, and Bartholomew they hung naked by the hair. 126 And they smiled on each other, as not being tormented. But Mariamne on being stripped became like an ark of glass full of light and fire and every one ran away. 127 And Philip and Bartholomew talked in Hebrew, and Philip said: Shall we call down fire from heaven? 128 And now John arrived, and asked what was happening, and the people told him. 129 And he was taken to the place. Philip said to Bartholomew in Hebrew: Here is John the son of Barega (or, he that is in Barek), that is (or, where is) the living water. And John said: The mystery of him that hanged between the heaven and the earth be with you.
Does not say The crucifixions were in the Temple! As John (Carson) used to say, "Wild stuff." And in an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the penalty for not believing that this fiction was history was a historical punishment worse than the fiction described.



Joseph

'The New Porphyry

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4022
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 » Mon May 09, 2016 7:31 am

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Early supposed Christian martyrs killed by crucifixion. Who carried the stake?:

Identification Carrier? Commentary
The Acts of Peter And while Peter thus spake, and all the brethren wept, behold four soldiers took him and led him unto Agrippa. And he in his madness (disease) commanded him to be crucified on an accusation of godlessness.

The whole multitude of the brethren therefore ran together, both of rich and poor, orphans and widows, weak and strong, desiring to see and to rescue Peter, while the people shouted with one voice, and would not be silenced: What wrong hath Peter done, O Agrippa? Wherein hath he hurt thee? tell the Romans! And others said: We fear lest if this man die, his Lord destroy us all.

And Peter when he came unto the place stilled the people and said: Ye men that are soldiers of Christ! ye men that hope in Christ! remember the signs and wonders which ye have seen wrought through me, remember the compassion of God, how many cures he hath wrought for you. Wait for him that cometh and shall reward every man according to his doings. And now be ye not bitter against Agrippa; for he is the minister of his father's working. And this cometh to pass at all events, for the Lord hath manifested unto me that which befalleth. But why delay I and draw not near unto the cross?

XXXVII. And having approached and standing by the cross
No one. -
The Acts of Philip And the apostles were arrested, 121 and scourged and dragged to the temple, 122 and shut up in it (with the leopard and the kid. These are omitted in the principal text, but constantly occur in another recension: rightly, of course). 123 The people and priests came and demanded vengeance on the sorcerers. 124 The proconsul was afraid of his wife, for he had been almost blinded by a wonderful light when he looked through the window at her when praying. 125 They stripped and searched the apostles for charms, and pierced Philip's ankles and thighs and hung him head downward, and Bartholomew they hung naked by the hair. 126 And they smiled on each other, as not being tormented. But Mariamne on being stripped became like an ark of glass full of light and fire and every one ran away. 127 And Philip and Bartholomew talked in Hebrew, and Philip said: Shall we call down fire from heaven? 128 And now John arrived, and asked what was happening, and the people told him. 129 And he was taken to the place. Philip said to Bartholomew in Hebrew: Here is John the son of Barega (or, he that is in Barek), that is (or, where is) the living water. And John said: The mystery of him that hanged between the heaven and the earth be with you. Does not say The crucifixions were in the Temple! As John (Carson) used to say, "Wild stuff." And in an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the penalty for not believing that this fiction was history was a historical punishment worse than the fiction described.

Was there a stake in that second example?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Tue May 10, 2016 5:46 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Early supposed Christian martyrs killed by crucifixion. Who carried the stake?:

Identification Carrier? Commentary
The Acts of Peter And while Peter thus spake, and all the brethren wept, behold four soldiers took him and led him unto Agrippa. And he in his madness (disease) commanded him to be crucified on an accusation of godlessness.

The whole multitude of the brethren therefore ran together, both of rich and poor, orphans and widows, weak and strong, desiring to see and to rescue Peter, while the people shouted with one voice, and would not be silenced: What wrong hath Peter done, O Agrippa? Wherein hath he hurt thee? tell the Romans! And others said: We fear lest if this man die, his Lord destroy us all.

And Peter when he came unto the place stilled the people and said: Ye men that are soldiers of Christ! ye men that hope in Christ! remember the signs and wonders which ye have seen wrought through me, remember the compassion of God, how many cures he hath wrought for you. Wait for him that cometh and shall reward every man according to his doings. And now be ye not bitter against Agrippa; for he is the minister of his father's working. And this cometh to pass at all events, for the Lord hath manifested unto me that which befalleth. But why delay I and draw not near unto the cross?

XXXVII. And having approached and standing by the cross
No one. -
The Acts of Philip And the apostles were arrested, 121 and scourged and dragged to the temple, 122 and shut up in it (with the leopard and the kid. These are omitted in the principal text, but constantly occur in another recension: rightly, of course). 123 The people and priests came and demanded vengeance on the sorcerers. 124 The proconsul was afraid of his wife, for he had been almost blinded by a wonderful light when he looked through the window at her when praying. 125 They stripped and searched the apostles for charms, and pierced Philip's ankles and thighs and hung him head downward, and Bartholomew they hung naked by the hair. 126 And they smiled on each other, as not being tormented. But Mariamne on being stripped became like an ark of glass full of light and fire and every one ran away. 127 And Philip and Bartholomew talked in Hebrew, and Philip said: Shall we call down fire from heaven? 128 And now John arrived, and asked what was happening, and the people told him. 129 And he was taken to the place. Philip said to Bartholomew in Hebrew: Here is John the son of Barega (or, he that is in Barek), that is (or, where is) the living water. And John said: The mystery of him that hanged between the heaven and the earth be with you. Does not say The crucifixions were in the Temple! As John (Carson) used to say, "Wild stuff." And in an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the penalty for not believing that this fiction was history was a historical punishment worse than the fiction described.

Was there a stake in that second example?
JW:
Sounds like it:
139 And Philip, still hanging, spoke to them and told them of his offense 140 And some ran to take him down: but he refused and spoke to them . . . . " Be not grieved that I hang thus, for I bear the form (type) of the first man, who was brought upon earth head downwards, and again by the tree of the cross made alive from the death of his transgression. And now do I fulfil the precept. For the Lord said to me: Unless ye make that which is beneath to be above, and the left to be right (and the right left), ye shall not enter into my kingdom. Be like me in this: for all the world is turned the wrong way, and every soul that is in it."
But as Dennis said in the classic SpongeBob movie, "Perhaps I've said too the much." The Temple here is not "The Temple".


Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 1

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7851
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue May 10, 2016 5:53 am

I always understood Rome not Jerusalem to be the locale in the Acts of Peter.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Tue May 10, 2016 6:09 am

JW:
Continuing with early supposed Christian martyrs killed by crucifixion. Who carried the stake?:

Identification Carrier? Commentary
The Acts of Peter
And while Peter thus spake, and all the brethren wept, behold four soldiers took him and led him unto Agrippa. And he in his madness (disease) commanded him to be crucified on an accusation of godlessness.

The whole multitude of the brethren therefore ran together, both of rich and poor, orphans and widows, weak and strong, desiring to see and to rescue Peter, while the people shouted with one voice, and would not be silenced: What wrong hath Peter done, O Agrippa? Wherein hath he hurt thee? tell the Romans! And others said: We fear lest if this man die, his Lord destroy us all.

And Peter when he came unto the place stilled the people and said: Ye men that are soldiers of Christ! ye men that hope in Christ! remember the signs and wonders which ye have seen wrought through me, remember the compassion of God, how many cures he hath wrought for you. Wait for him that cometh and shall reward every man according to his doings. And now be ye not bitter against Agrippa; for he is the minister of his father's working. And this cometh to pass at all events, for the Lord hath manifested unto me that which befalleth. But why delay I and draw not near unto the cross?

XXXVII. And having approached and standing by the cross
No one. -
The Acts of Philip
And the apostles were arrested, 121 and scourged and dragged to the temple, 122 and shut up in it (with the leopard and the kid. These are omitted in the principal text, but constantly occur in another recension: rightly, of course). 123 The people and priests came and demanded vengeance on the sorcerers. 124 The proconsul was afraid of his wife, for he had been almost blinded by a wonderful light when he looked through the window at her when praying. 125 They stripped and searched the apostles for charms, and pierced Philip's ankles and thighs and hung him head downward, and Bartholomew they hung naked by the hair. 126 And they smiled on each other, as not being tormented. But Mariamne on being stripped became like an ark of glass full of light and fire and every one ran away. 127 And Philip and Bartholomew talked in Hebrew, and Philip said: Shall we call down fire from heaven? 128 And now John arrived, and asked what was happening, and the people told him. 129 And he was taken to the place. Philip said to Bartholomew in Hebrew: Here is John the son of Barega (or, he that is in Barek), that is (or, where is) the living water. And John said: The mystery of him that hanged between the heaven and the earth be with you.
Does not say The crucifixions were in the Temple! As John (Carson) used to say, "Wild stuff." And in an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the penalty for not believing that this fiction was history was a historical punishment worse than the fiction described.
Acts of Andrew
And he commanded him to be scourged by seven men and afterward to be crucified: and charged the executioners that his legs should be left unpierccd, and so he should be hanged up: thinking by this means to torment him the more.

Now the report was noised throughout all Patrae that the stranger, the righteous man, the servant of Christ whom Aegeates held prisoner, was being crucified, having done nothing amiss: and they ran together with one accord unto the sight, being wroth with the proconsul because of his impious judgement.

And as the executioners led him unto the place to fulfil that which was commanded them, Stratocles heard what was come to pass, and ran hastily and overtook them, and beheld the blessed Andrew violently haled by the executioners like a malefactor. And he spared them not, but beating every one of them soundly and tearing their coats from top to bottom, he caught Andrew away from them, saying: Ye may thank the blessed man who hath instructed me and taught me to refrain from extremity of wrath: for else I would have showed you what Stratocles is able to do, and what is the power of the foul Aegeates. For we have learnt to endure that which others inflict upon us. And he took the hand of the apostle and went with him to the place by the sea-shore where he was to be crucified.

But the soldiers who had received him from the proconsul left him with Stratocles, and returned and told Aegeates, saying: As we went with Andrew Stratocles prevented us, and rent our coats and pulled him away from us and took him with him, and lo, here we are as thou seest. And Aegeates answered them: Put on other raiment and go and fulfil that which I commanded you, upon the condemned man: but be not seen of Stratocles, neither answer him again if he ask aught of you; for I know the rashness of his soul, what it is, and if he were provoked he would not even spare me. And they did as Aegeates said unto them.

But as Stratocles went with the apostle unto the place appointed, Andrew perceived that he was wroth with Aegeates and was reviling him in a low voice, and said unto him: My child Stratocles, I would have thee henceforth possess thy soul unmoved, and remove from thyself this temper, and neither be inwardly disposed thus toward the things that seem hard to thee, nor be inflamed outwardly: for it becometh the servant of Jesus to be worthy of Jesus. And another thing will I say unto thee and to the brethren that walk with me: that the man that is against us, when he dareth aught against us and findeth not one to consent unto him, is smitten and beaten and wholly deadened because he hath not accomplished that which he undertook; let us therefore, little children, have him alway before our eyes, lest if we fall asleep he slaughter us (you) like an adversary.

And as he spake this and yet more unto Stratocles and them that were with him, they came to the place where he was to be crucified: and (seeing the cross set up at the edge of the sand by the sea-shore) he left them all and went to the cross and spake unto it (as unto a living creature, with a loud voice):

Hail, O cross, yea be glad indeed!
No one. The interesting part is that Andrew's big finish (so to speak) is his speech to a stake.



Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 1

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7851
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue May 10, 2016 6:43 am

Having watched this conversation drag on for what seems like decades I would like to be allowed the opportunity to speak for lost traditions. Clement of Alexandria clearly speaks of Jesus 'bearing the sign' which presumably means 'sign of the cross' so other traditions had other understandings. It might also be useful to consider the idea that the business about 'Simon being the father' of people allegedly 'known' to the author and his audience as a typical distraction tactic of the Catholic editor. Most of the 'friends' of Paul (added to the ends of letters) did not appear in the Marcionite versions of those letters (cf Origen's testimony regarding the shorter ending of Romans). The idea that Christianity had 'eyewitnesses' beyond what is the Marcionite paradigm i.e. a revelation to Paul is a consistent feature of the second century propaganda effort of Irenaeus and his cronies. If you think the gospel was created by Paul none of this matters.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

TedM
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

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

Post by TedM » Tue May 10, 2016 12:28 pm

<<It might also be useful to consider the idea that the business about 'Simon being the father' of people allegedly 'known' to the author and his audience as a typical distraction tactic of the Catholic editor.>>

How does that work? Who is he trying to 'distract' and for what reason? Did the Catholic editor forsee a need for readers to have a tidbit that makes the gospel seem to be historical- as if they would be questioning the historicity? If that's what you mean, surely he could have done better than this--Ie he could have been more explicit. Maybe you mean something else here?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7851
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue May 10, 2016 12:44 pm

Well the reason I am so interested in Marcionite model is that it does provide a counterpoint to the "historical model" argument. In other words if Paul wrote the gospel from a heavenly vision then he is the only authority. The idea that this revelation existed alongside a "historical model" ie where people knew Jesus and knew others who knew Jesus is probably poppycock. The friends of those who knew Jesus is likely a myth alongside the brothers of Jesus fable.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7851
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue May 10, 2016 12:47 pm

As Trobisch demonstrated the canon was layered in such a way that this nexus of witnesses comes to the fore. But what are the odds that one tradition says it all came from one guy and then a canon was develope as a reaction against Marcion by showing there was this massive social network of witnesses who all witnessed the same truth? Sounds too good to be true and more like a reaction against the "it comes down to one guy" argument.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4860
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:59 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
T. E. Schmidt listed many details of the Roman Triumph that opened up the possibility (even likelihood) that Mark was composing Jesus' crucifixion as a reverse Roman Triumph. One little detail not included by Schmidt is the description of Simon of Cyrene coming in out of the countryside. A third century c.e. Roman novel by Heliodorus describes a procession led (like the Triumph, iirc) with the sacrificial animals. Accompanying these animals were the men who were to carry out the slaughter carrying the instruments of sacrificial execution (a double-headed axe that quite irrelevantly I am sure looked something like a cross).

And like Simon of Cyrene these men came in from the countryside.
At the head of the procession came the sacrificial animals, led on the halter by the men who were to perform the holy rites, countryfolk, in country costume.. Each wore a white tunic, caught up to knee length by a belt. Their right arms were bare to the shoulder and breast, and in their right hands they each brandished a double-headed ax. From Book 3, Ethiopian Story.
I presume country-folk were chosen because they were the ones experienced in leading and butchering the large animals. (Maybe Alexander and Rufus were local butchers being given a free plug by Mark.)

Obviously one balks at the idea of using a third century source here but I might suggest that what we are reading is a description of a custom that surely had very aged roots.

If this information is relevant might it not support the interpretation of a negative role for Simon of Cyrene -- that he is participating in the execution of Jesus rather than "carrying his own cross"?

(But then I am still faced with the possibility of another Markan irony/ambiguity.)

Incidentally, I question whether we should ever think that Mark was constrained by tradition or the material at hand or the 'facts' as he knew them. If we know anything about ancient "historical" literature and the gospels themselves it is that their authors were quite prepared to change, drop and introduce details as served their instructional purposes.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 418#p34418
andrewcriddle wrote:
  • FWIW Heliodorus probably lived in the 4th century CE and may have been a Christian bishop.
neilgodfrey wrote:
Perhaps the "Cyrenian" identifier needs to be explained in context of Simon being said to have been coming in from the countryside.

Returning to Michael Turton's commentary where he writes:
T.E. Schmidt (1995) argues that Simon represents the person who accompanied the sacrificial bull in the processions, carrying an enormous double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim's death.

. . . . there is a little support for this hypothesis in a description a century later of a triumphal procession in a novella by Heliodorius. Those chosen to lead the procession with the weapon of execution and the sacrificial victim were typically "from the countryside".
At the head of the procession came the sacrificial animals, led on the halter by the men who were to perform the holy rites, countryfolk in country costume. Each wore a white tunic, caught up to knee length by a belt. Their right arms were bare to the shoulder and breast, and in their right hands they each brandished a double-headed axe. -- An Ethiopian Story 3.1 by Heliodorus
Presumably the countryside provenance indicates one practiced in the craft of butchery.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 747#p52747
For what it's worth, Schmidt does not refer to countryflok nor does he refer to or cite Heliodorius -
  • "A consistent feature in the numerous monuments depicting triumphs is the sacrificial bull, led along dressed and crowned to signify its identity with the triumphator. But the bull is not alone. In nearly everyone of these depictions, walking alongside the bull, is an official who carries over his shoulder a double-bladed axe, the instrument of the victim's death. The parallel might appear to be coincidental, but two remarkable details - Simon's link to the community of faith via his sons and his non-complicity with events up to this point as indicated by his having just arrived from out of town (fPXOIl£VOV un:' uypou) - suggest that Mark envisions his role as divinely planned. This practically official function adds to the visual image of instrument-bearer for the victim. It is the first of several evocative details involving unwitting irony on the part of the soldiers."
http://theapologeticsgroup.com/wp-conte ... ESSION.pdf

Schmidt had previously led in to this with an interesting description of bull sacrifice
  • THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRIUMPH
H. S. Versnel's detailed monograph Triumphus explains how the Roman triumph evolved from Etruscan and Greek ceremonies calling for an epiphany of Dionysus, the dying and rising god. In the Athenian New Year festival Anthesteria, Dionysus, portrayed in costume by the king, was carried into the city in a formal procession which included a bull to be sacrificed. The king was a fitting representative of the anthropomorphic god because Dionysus was generally portrayed as the god who triumphs, especially over men. The procession culminated in a cry for the epiphany of the god (epia!l~£, triumpe in Latin), the bull was sacrificed, and the king appeared as the god. It is noteworthy that several ancient cultures celebrated similar rites and tolerated the simultaneous presence of the bull and the king, who both represented the god. In Greece, Zeus eventually supplanted Dionysus. There are many links between the two gods,5 but the shift may have centered on the position of Zeus as king of the gods. In Rome, Zeus became Jupiter, and the vestiges of homage to Dionysus (Bacchus), whose cult had merged with that of Liber, added some significant details to the sacral elements of the Roman version of the triumph.6 - note the reference to a crown

The Roman adaptation of the triumph allowed victorious generals to replace kings as triumphators. Historians of the period appear to downplay - or perhaps to assume - the sacral elements of the triumph in their attention to its political aspects. As a result, we do not have a single description of the culminating moment of sacrifice at the conclusion of a triumph but must piece together the probable scene in the first century from a variety of extant sources, both literary and monumental.

Dio Cassius7 describes an early Roman triumph after which subsequent processions were patterned. First, the soldiers would proclaim a victorious general as imperator and the senate would decree a triumph. The triumphator appeared 'arrayed in the triumphal dress and wearing armlets, with a laurel crown upon his head, and holding a branch in his right hand .. .' He called together the people, praised the gathered soldiers, distributed gifts, and then mounted a tower-shaped chariot upon which he moved in procession with a slave holding a crown over his head. He was preceded into the city by captives and graphic representations of his victories. Finally, 'the victorious general arrived at the Roman Forum, and after commanding that some of the captives be led to prison and put to death, he rode up to the Capitol. There he performed certain rites and made offerings and dined in the porticos up there, after which he departed homeward toward evening .. .'

6. Pliny HN 16.4 explains that Liber invented the symbols of royalty, including the crown

7. 6.23 (Zonar. 7.21).
Later, after the two passages I have cited above, Schmidt says

Just prior to the sacrifice of the bull, or in a few cases simultaneously with that sacrifice, the triumphator (or sacrificant in general) was offered a cup of wine, which he would refuse and then pour on the altar (or, more rarely, on the bull itself).33 The wine obviously signifies the precious blood of the victim, and the links between sacrificant, wine, and victim signify their identity.

The connection is confirmed by the similar adornment of the triumphator and the bull. In other words, the bull is the god who dies and appears as the victor in the person of the triumphator. All of this is of course shorthand for a long process of ritual development, but for our purposes the formulaic element is clear: at the crucial moment of a triumph, the moment of sacrifice, expensive wine is poured out.

In Mark's account, the next words are 'and they crucified him'. These words constitute either an abrupt transition from a trivial detail or a connection between wine and sacrifice. 14.25 supplies precedent for such a connection, and the sequence of events here may add another detail to an emerging picture of Jesus as simultaneously triumphator and sacrifice.

With regard to the sacrifice itself, it should be noted that 'it was not merely a thanksgiving sacrifice for the victory, but was at the same time looked upon as a sacrifice pro salute rei publicae pointing to the future'.34 This forward-looking, community-oriented, soteriological function for the sacrifice gains in significance in view of the fact that a victorious Hellenistic king was given the title O'co'tfJp when he entered his city, and his arrival was celebrated as the mxpoucria of a god.35 Key terminology and the key element of the triumph were clearly adaptable to the Christian kerygma and may have contributed to Mark's perception of the crucifixion as the antitype of the triumph.

http://theapologeticsgroup.com/wp-conte ... ESSION.pdf
Later again, in the article, Schmidt cites LR Taylor -

".. the bull, had long before been the symbol of the divine king in Egypt and had come down into the Hellenistic cult as a favorite victim in the worship of the monarch. Thus the Genius of the Roman emperor had inherited the cult of the Hellenistic monarch who appeared before his subjects as an incarnate god."50

50 L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, Connecticut: American Philological Association, 1931) 246. In an appendix (270-83), Taylor documents scores of ascriptions of divinity to Augustus, including the title (JOlTItP• See also Versnel, 56-93 for an extended argument for the identification of the triumphator as Jupiter and the suppression of explicit identification out of republican sympathies.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Charles Wilson, Iphigeneia, JoeWallack, Kapyong, lsayre, MrMacSon, Peter Kirby, Steven Avery, Thor, Yahoo [Bot] and 66 guests