Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What do you think this placement of ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ means?

I have no idea. But I think a valid interpretation of Alexander and Rufus should also explain the unusual wording, the „coming from the field“ and the „passing by“.

It does not help, but during the Galilean ministry the „fields“ appear in relation to „villages“ and „cities“ and could be seen as farms, landed estates, landholdings or latifundia, for example in Mark 6:56

And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or fields, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and implored him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well.

In Mark 9:29-30 they appear in relation to family relationships

Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

I think that the best sense here could be that

- the „house“ represents the household, the clan and the dwelling place
- „the brothers or sisters or mother or father or children“ the system of emotional family relationships
- and the „fields“ (here as „lands“ translated) the economic base of livelihood of the ancient family

[Ben C. Smith]

What do you think this placement of ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ means?

I have no idea. But I think a valid interpretation of Alexander and Rufus should also explain the unusual wording, the „coming from the field“ and the „passing by“.

Okay, I will give my take on it. I think the wording is unusual only if we are taking Alexander and Rufus as an identification for Simon. Patronymic identification became so commonplace in antiquity and in the medieval period that it contributed to the formation of many surnames:

Pálfi = son of Pál (Hungarian)
Ramirez = son of Ramiro (Spanish)
Andersson = son of Anders (Swedish)
O'Brien = son of Brien (Irish Gaelic)
Ivanovich = son of Ivan (Russian)
Fitzwilliam = son of William (Norman)
Bedrosian = son of Bedros (Armenian)
MacDonald = son of Donald (Scottish)

But of course this is old news. The point here is that the patronymic identification usually follows hard upon the name; countless examples of this can be adduced, and this typical placement is presumably part of what led to the formation of the surnames (Ivan the son of Ivan > Ivan Ivanovich).

But patronymic identification is not the only kind of identification in ancient texts. Identification by place of origin is also quite common. In this case, it is "Simon, a Cyrenian" (Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον). That is the identification for this bystander named Simon, and it follows, as expected, hard upon the name. Him being the father of Alexander and Rufus is not a patronymic; and of course actually identifying a person by his or her children is pretty rare. Because Simon is identified by his place of origin, and not by his father, it is a mistake to compare the wording here to that of patronymics and other genealogical identifications.

Rather, the basis for comparison ought to be instances when the family information is not being used as a method of identification. For example:

Wars 5.4.1 §137: Accordingly, it was called the "Citadel," by king David; he was the father of that Solomon who built this temple at the first....." / διὰ γοῦν τὴν ὀχυρότητα φρούριον μὲν ὑπὸ Δαυίδου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐκαλεῖτο, πατὴρ Σολομῶνος ἦν οὗτος τοῦ τὸν πρῶτον ναὸν κτίσαντος....

Antiquities 19.1.15 §117: ...whence it was that they went by other ways, and came to the house of Germanicus, the father of Caius [παρῆσαν εἰς τὴν Γερμανικοῦ μὲν οἰκίαν τοῦ Γαΐου πατρός], whom they had now killed....

In the first case David is already identified as the King; his fatherhood of Solomon is added by way of connecting him to the builder of the Temple under discussion. In the second case both Germanicus and Caius have already been introduced in book 18; this family relationship is adduced in order to connect to those previous parts of the narrative, not to identify either one of them (hence the "father of" terminology instead of a patronymic). In neither case does the family relationship follow hard upon the name of the person; in one an object of a preposition intervenes, along with a postpositive particle, while in the other a main verb intervenes.

So when we read in Mark 15.21: Καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου, ἵνα ἄρῃ τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, there is nothing unusual about the intervention of the phrase ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ between Simon and his relationship to his sons compared to the usual ways of identifying characters in narratives, simply because his sons are not being used to identify a character in the narrative. If the analogies hold true, then the sons are there in order to make a connection to something else; I have offered Ruth 4.17 as a close parallel, in which the reader is presumed to know who David is (and yet David is not being used to identify Obed in the narrative sense, who has already been introduced as the son of Boaz and Ruth). This is why I call reader knowledge of Alexander and Rufus the "plain reading" of the text.

To address Joe's helpful table:

One way to measure relative evidence for fiction is to determine the percent of pieces of information in a section that have evidence of fiction. For the offending verse:

15:21

Information	Evidence of fiction	Commentary
And they compel one passing by,	Unlikely	Unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake
Simon	Repetition	5 different Simons
of Cyrene,	Unusual presentation	The Greek is not "of Cyrene", it's "Cyrenian", a name and not a derivative
coming from the country,	Contrived/Unorthodox	Greek is "from the field" same as the LA and interrupts the identification
the father of	Unorthodox	Identification is normally by father.
Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them],	Unusual	Alexander is a Greek name and Rufus is a Latin name
that he might bear his cross.	Contrived	Simon the lead disciple abandons Jesus and a different Simon takes up Jesus' stake

Every piece of information here tests positive for fiction.

I obviously disagree with most of this.

As discussed above, nothing "interrupts the identification", which is "normally by father". Simon is identified by place of origin, not by family relationship. Alexander and Rufus are evidently there for another reason.

Why is calling Simon "a Cyrenian" instead of "of/from Cyrene" unusual? Is Ἰωάννης Δαμασκηνός unusual? If so, what does it mean? Why not use the demonym?

Repetition is not a sign of fiction; or at least it is not a sign only of fiction. In this case it can clearly be a sign that the name Sim(e)on was the most common Palestinian Jewish name, as I have pointed out before.

It is true that the usual custom was for the condemned to bear his own cross. 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." But think about crucifixion for a moment. It was a real punishment; it was really carried out. Yet how would it have been handled if the condemned was physically unable to bear the cross? It must have happened sometimes. I suppose the Roman soldiers could carry it themselves, but I regard that as less likely than the simple alternative. 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." I suspect the soldiers would most likely just conscript somebody to carry the cross for them. They harbored no qualms about beating people up for little or no reason (Juvenal, Satire 16); why would they harbor any about forcing someone to do a bit of their dirty work for them?

The last two rows on the table are the only ones, IMHO, that bear explaining. Yes, Sim(e)on is a Jewish name, Alexander a Greek name, and Rufus a Roman name. That Jews often took on Greek and/or Roman nicknames is a commonplace, but the nice threefold distribution might mean something. I am not sure what, but it might. The switching out of Simon from Cyrene (15.21) for Simon Peter (8.33-34) also seems slightly convenient; something weird might be going on there (but again, bear in mind that Simon was a very common name).

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

Bravo, Ben. I thought the same thing when I read most of this but didn't want to enhance my reputation as a contrarian.

[Secret Alias]

Many Roman names became extremely common in other cultures - Marcus for instance.

[Giuseppe]

Only speculation:

Rufus : the 'red' one.

Alexander: Helper and defender of mankind.

Jesus is 'Rufus' insofar he wears a scarlet tunic in that moment.

It 'seems' that Simon replaces Jesus even by the look of his sons.

Nietzsche: the sons are the hidden secret of their father.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Rather, the basis for comparison ought to be instances when the family information is not being used as a method of identification. For example:

Wars 5.4.1 §137: Accordingly, it was called the "Citadel," by king David; he was the father of that Solomon who built this temple at the first....." / διὰ γοῦν τὴν ὀχυρότητα φρούριον μὲν ὑπὸ Δαυίδου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐκαλεῖτο, πατὴρ Σολομῶνος ἦν οὗτος τοῦ τὸν πρῶτον ναὸν κτίσαντος....

Antiquities 19.1.15 §117: ...whence it was that they went by other ways, and came to the house of Germanicus, the father of Caius [παρῆσαν εἰς τὴν Γερμανικοῦ μὲν οἰκίαν τοῦ Γαΐου πατρός], whom they had now killed....

In the first case David is already identified as the King; his fatherhood of Solomon is added by way of connecting him to the builder of the Temple under discussion. In the second case both Germanicus and Caius have already been introduced in book 18; this family relationship is adduced in order to connect to those previous parts of the narrative, not to identify either one of them (hence the "father of" terminology instead of a patronymic). In neither case does the family relationship follow hard upon the name of the person; in one an object of a preposition intervenes, along with a postpositive particle, while in the other a main verb intervenes.

So when we read in Mark 15.21: Καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου, ἵνα ἄρῃ τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, there is nothing unusual about the intervention of the phrase ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ between Simon and his relationship to his sons compared to the usual ways of identifying characters in narratives, simply because his sons are not being used to identify a character in the narrative. If the analogies hold true, then the sons are there in order to make a connection to something else; I have offered Ruth 4.17 as a close parallel, in which the reader is presumed to know who David is (and yet David is not being used to identify Obed in the narrative sense, who has already been introduced as the son of Boaz and Ruth). This is why I call reader knowledge of Alexander and Rufus the "plain reading" of the text.

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm a bit surprised that you think "there is nothing unusual". I meant "identification" not in a strict sense. I could have said "characterization".

I think your examples by Josephus do not have the same quality.

Wars 5.4.1 §137: Accordingly, the "Citadel" by king David it was called; the father of Solomon
Antiquities 19.1.15 §117: and came to Germanicus' house, the father of Caius

In both cases it is one thought and the focus is on the "Citadel" and the "house" and not on the men. In Mark 15:21 the phrase "who was coming in from the field" introduce a new thought.

However, I do not wish to win a debate in this case. You should add the good old Timaeus to your list. Clearly the top favorite for this "plain reading".

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm a bit surprised that you think "there is nothing unusual". I meant "identification" not in a strict sense. I could have said "characterization".

I think your examples by Josephus do not have the same quality.

Wars 5.4.1 §137: Accordingly, the "Citadel" by king David it was called; the father of Solomon
Antiquities 19.1.15 §117: and came to Germanicus' house, the father of Caius

In both cases it is one thought and the focus is on the "Citadel" and the "house" and not on the men. In Mark 15:21 the phrase "who was coming in from the field" introduce a new thought.

I think it is one thought in Mark 15.21, as well: "coming in from the field" expands on "passerby". Unless I am not understanding you.

Once we admit that "father of Alexander and Rufus" is not really an identifier, and therefore ought not to be expected to follow patterns typical of identification, then the entirety of Greek syntax lies wide open... unless you mean something specific and tangible by "characterizations"; I for one admit I know of no special rules or patterns for "characterizations". The author may lay the phrases next to each other, or stack phrases inside of phrases in complex concentric patterns like Thucydides, or suspend objects of prepositions or main verbs like Josephus, or do any of a hundred different things that are viable in Greek syntax (owing mainly to the existence of cases to help distinguish one construction from another). Mark has one such viable construction. So no, I see nothing unusual in the Marcan syntax here (so far).

Ben.

[TedM]

Your post piqued some curiosity:

EDIT: I see Ben addressed some of this too..

Unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake

If we accept that Jesus was unable to bear his own cross, what would be more likely in your view, and why?

5 different Simons

Why not consider that the name was common, thus decreasing it's importance in this passage, rather than increasing it?

Greek is "from the field" same as the LA and interrupts the identification

I don't know Greek but the version I am looking at (NASB) doesn't have the same order and this phrase comes before any identification.

Alexander is a Greek name and Rufus is a Latin name

Is that really unusual? Are you saying it would be unusual for Jewish two brothers from Cyrene to have those names?

JW:
A relatively high percent of GMark consists of the impossible and a relatively high percent consists of the improbable. Therefore, I think the default conclusion is that any individual part of GMark is more likely fiction than history. In this unholy Forum though the emphasis should be on evidence and not conclusions.

One way to measure relative evidence for fiction is to determine the percent of pieces of information in a section that have evidence of fiction. For the offending verse:

15:21

Information	Evidence of fiction	Commentary
And they compel one passing by,	Unlikely	Unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake
Simon	Repetition	5 different Simons
of Cyrene,	Unusual presentation	The Greek is not "of Cyrene", it's "Cyrenian", a name and not a derivative
coming from the country,	Contrived/Unorthodox	Greek is "from the field" same as the LA and interrupts the identification
the father of	Unorthodox	Identification is normally by father.
Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them],	Unusual	Alexander is a Greek name and Rufus is a Latin name
that he might bear his cross.	Contrived	Simon the lead disciple abandons Jesus and a different Simon takes up Jesus' stake

Every piece of information here tests positive for fiction.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[DCHindley]

On a more serious note, the account may be a veiled prediction of the woes to come over the city of Jerusalem and the Judean people. See the story of Abimelech in 4 Baruch 5:15, who falls asleep for 66 years to find Jerusalem almost vacant and Jeremiah & the people exiled to Babylon:

"While he was seated, he saw a certain old man coming from the field, (εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ) and Abimelech says to him: "To you I say, old fellow, what city is this?" 16 And he said to him: "It is Jerusalem." 17 And Abimelech says to him: "Where is Jeremiah the priest, and Baruch the secretary, and all the people of this city, because I have not found them?" 18 And the elder said to him: "Are you not of this city, having remembered today Jeremiach, that you have asked concerning him, after so much time? 19 For Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people; for they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar the king, and with them is Jeremiah, proclaiming good news to them and teaching them the word."

Or maybe it has to do with hospitality because of Judges 19.16; or maybe it has to do with King Saul because of 1 Samuel 11.5; or maybe it is a variant of the story of the prodigal son because of Luke 15.25. It is just too common a concept; it points everywhere, and therefore it points nowhere.

So, you noticed that I was not actually being serious after all ... dingy dang!

DCH

[JoeWallack]

To address Joe's helpful table:

...

I obviously disagree with most of this.
Ben.

JW:
Thanks for the feedback Ben. I define "unusual" for now as something other than the most common form or style of presentation. While this is still a somewhat subjective definition, giving one or a few counter-examples is not going to convert the unusual into the not unusual. Right now I don't think I would need much more than your last response to demonstrate that "Mark" (author) has an unusual presentation for 15:21. In general I don't think people properly appreciate the value of evidence from general observations. For example, here, there is no extant evidence outside the Gospels as a source, that there were any crucifixions in the first third of the first century in Israel. This is not proof, does not make anything probable and may not be good evidence, but it is evidence.

Again, regarding the question of unusual presentation of 15:21 I'm trying to move the conversation away from conclusions and towards the evidence. A more objective analysis would be trying to compare percents of unusual presentation for comparable sections of comparable authors. So:

Information Mark 15:21
Information Matthew 27:32	Difference	Commentary
And they compel one passing by,	And as they came out, they found...him they compelled to go [with them]	1. "Mark" has "forced". "Matthew" has "employed". 2. "Mark" has "passing by". "Matthew" has "found".	1. "Mark" is more unlikely. 2. "Mark" is more unlikely as it indicates a coincidence. Again, unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake.
Simon	Simon by name	None	An unusual amount of Simons relative to other names used here which just happens to be the name of the second most important character. 5 different Simons
of Cyrene,	a man of Cyrene	"Matthew" makes clear the Cyrene connection.	"Mark" is unusual. The Greek ("Mark") is not "of Cyrene", it's "Cyrenian", a name and not a derivative
coming from the country,		"Matthew" has exorcised.	"Mark" is Contrived/Unorthodox. Greek is "from the field" same as the LA and interrupts the identification
the father of		"Matthew" has exorcised.	"Mark" is unorthodox. Identification is normally by father.
Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them],		"Matthew" has exorcised.	"Mark" is unusual. Alexander is a Greek name and Rufus is a Latin name
that he might bear his cross.	that he might bear his cross	None	The Greek is "take up" rather than "carry". Unusual and fits the previous disciple instruction of "taking up the stake". Simon the lead disciple abandons Jesus and a different Simon takes up Jesus' stake

It's safe to say that "Mark's" presentation is more unusual than "Matthew's" (author). This is the type of relative comparison I'm most interested in here. An advantage of this specific comparison is that the same thing is being presented. A disadvantage is the dependent relationship with "Matthew" using "Mark" as a base.


Joseph

The New Porphyry