A Marcionite Antithesis behind Jesus Bar-Abbas?

[Tsadi Waw Mem Taw]

"Cyren is for me prima facie symbol of a Jewish revolt repressed in a country far distant from Israel.
Simon is Simon bar Kochba.

Alexander is the FIRST Greek that taked Judea.

Rufus is the name of LAST roman governor of Judea, at time of bar Kochba's rebellion (when the Gospels were written)."

"“But probably the most remarkable person we see
mentioned in the Gospel is Simon of Cyrene (Matt.
27, 32, Mark 15, 21, Luke 23, 26).
This Is the real name of the famous Bar-Cocheba,
and Mark adds, ''The father of Alexander and Rufus;"
and these are the names of Bar-Cocheba's children,
and therefore there is hardly any doubt but
that it refers to that famous hero ; and the words,
'' And on him they laid the cross, that he might bear
it after Jesus," has a significant figurative meaning.
We do not know of any other person in history to
whom these words can be better applied than to this
famous hero. He truly bore the cross after Jesus.
Like him he claimed to be a Messiah, and like him
he suffered death for his claim.
There are several other places in the Gospel
which we may point out in favor of our theory, but I
think, that what I have already adduced, will be sufficient
to convince any intelligent man that the Zealots,
and the Christians, were one and the same sect.
(See Art. The Chronology).”

- "New Discoveries in the Origin of the New Testament" by E.A. Walter, 1.1.1900

[Peter Kirby]

"Cyren is for me prima facie symbol of a Jewish revolt repressed in a country far distant from Israel.
Simon is Simon bar Kochba.

Alexander is the FIRST Greek that taked Judea.

Rufus is the name of LAST roman governor of Judea, at time of bar Kochba's rebellion (when the Gospels were written)."

"“But probably the most remarkable person we see
mentioned in the Gospel is Simon of Cyrene (Matt.
27, 32, Mark 15, 21, Luke 23, 26).
This Is the real name of the famous Bar-Cocheba,
and Mark adds, ''The father of Alexander and Rufus;"
and these are the names of Bar-Cocheba's children,
and therefore there is hardly any doubt but
that it refers to that famous hero ; and the words,
'' And on him they laid the cross, that he might bear
it after Jesus," has a significant figurative meaning.
We do not know of any other person in history to
whom these words can be better applied than to this
famous hero. He truly bore the cross after Jesus.
Like him he claimed to be a Messiah, and like him
he suffered death for his claim.
There are several other places in the Gospel
which we may point out in favor of our theory, but I
think, that what I have already adduced, will be sufficient
to convince any intelligent man that the Zealots,
and the Christians, were one and the same sect.
(See Art. The Chronology).”

- "New Discoveries in the Origin of the New Testament" by E.A. Walter, 1.1.1900

Interesting. Thanks for this, and welcome to the forum.

[Giuseppe]

Very interesting.

I'm really proud for having done already alone the identification Simon of Cyrene = Simon Bar Kochba, albeit with my poor hermeneutical tools (Peter knows something )

A note about this:

but I
think, that what I have already adduced, will be sufficient
to convince any intelligent man that the Zealots,
and the Christians, were one and the same sect.

my idea is that there were no Christians in I CE but only zealots and pro-zealots movements, as essenes (beyond the mainstream, obviously).

The zealots were precisely, in my view, the (absolutely generic) polemical target of Earliest Written Gospel, i.e. victims par excellence of false conceptions about the Jewish messiah, and about the true God at all.

This confirms that all our Gospels postdate Bar-Kochba era. And that Mcn is earliest version even about the Cyrene case: in fact in Mcn it's mentioned only Symon of Cyrene, and later Mark makes more clear the allusion to Simon Bar Kochba by quoting the names of his sons, too (if really Alexander and Rufus were his sons).

I remember that in this thread I have already raised the concrete possibility that Jesus Bar-Abbas is Simon Bar Kochba, too, i.e. the prototype of Jewish Messiah promised by Demiurg (and warrior like him).

[dayandhour]

''The father of Alexander and Rufus;"
and these are the names of Bar-Cocheba's children,

What's the historical source of this? I think that some (very) late jewish source could probably mention a "Rufus", but I never heard about a son called "Alexander".
So in my opinion the source for "Rufus" can be possibly late, while for "Alexander" it may not exist.

Thank for any further details/clarification you may provide.. This is my first post here, I'm looking forward to contributing!

[Giuseppe]

What I can say?

I know about late jewish medieval sources that named a Rufus as Simon Bar Kochba's son and a Romulus (!!!) as his nephew, very strange for a zealot Jew naming his son and nephew with Roman names (!).

But the point is another.

I can see a clear marcionite antithesis behind the cyrenaic episode:

two men bear the cross: Jesus and Simon.

Jesus IS innocent but he SEEMS guilty.

Simon of Cyrene IS guilty but he SEEMS innocent.

Here there would be the contradiction, the antithesis.

But why Simon is culpable?

Because he maybe is the famous Jewish rebel Simon Bar Kochba IN Israel, as Cyrene is the famous Jewish rebel community OUT Israel.

The anti-Roman & anti-Hellenist resistance ''caused'' as reactions ''Alexander'' and ''Rufus''. Alexander the Great precedes Anthiochus Epiphanes, the first jewish ''Antichrist'', while the roman governor Rufus precedes Hadrian, the second jewish ''Antichrist'': both Ephipanes and Hadrian put the ''abomination of desolation'' in a sacred place. Therefore ''Alexander'' and ''Rufus'' should be seen as the evil effects of zealot spirit of resistance & Jewish messianism: these evil effects are prodromes of even more tragic effects for the Jewish messianists.

I enjoy sometimes in speculating if what Joe Atwill thinks about Flavians etc (i.e. pure trash) can be thought about the authors of Mcn: in both cases the idea at bottom line is the condemnation of Jewish religion using a Gospel where the principal hero SEEMS Jewish but he is NOT Jewish, but another being son of another god.

[Giuseppe]

And why Simon ''was passing by on his way in from the country'' ? Why ''from the country''?

We already know who went from country to city. He was Jesus Bar-Abbas.

A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
(Mk 15:7)


Luke here would be more precise:

(Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
(Lk 23:19)

Jesus Bar-Abbas is Jesus Son of Father.

So the apologist:

Some acknowledge that Christ was not initially the son of the good God, but that he was sent by him as the adversary of 'his own natural father, whether that be the God who spoke in the law or the God of evil who is aligned alongside them as third principle'.
(Panarion, 42.14.3-4)

Here the apologist would be describing the evolution of docetic christology into a more adoptionist christology (that of Mark's?). It's curious that he talks about a father as enemy: the true father of Barabbas?

In a marcionite view, Bar-abbas would be the Messiah son of Demiurg. In a catholic view, Barabbas would be the Antichrist (see 2 Thess.). In both cases Bar Kochba is a potential candidate for Barabbas' role.

The antithesis Jesus vs Simon, Jesus vs Barabbas (in virtue of possible identity Simon=Barabbas=Bar Kochba) would be reflected too by fact that Jesus was exiting from Jerusalem to country (precisely, to golgota), while Simon was entering (presumably: in city) coming from country.

Therefore Simon would be in this 'entrance' a messianic figure 'kata sarka' à la traditional way, precisely Simon Bar Kochba. Something that remembers the Quo Vadis? episode. and no one would say that on that occasion SIMON Peter was exactly a Christian.

[andrewcriddle]

''The father of Alexander and Rufus;"
and these are the names of Bar-Cocheba's children,

What's the historical source of this? I think that some (very) late jewish source could probably mention a "Rufus", but I never heard about a son called "Alexander".
So in my opinion the source for "Rufus" can be possibly late, while for "Alexander" it may not exist.

Thank for any further details/clarification you may provide.. This is my first post here, I'm looking forward to contributing!

From the archive http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=238445

The earliest source for the claim that Simon bar Kochba had a son named Rufus (and a grandson named Romulus !!!) seems to be Ibrahim ibn Daud in the Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qabbalah) in c 1161 CE.

Possibly there is a confusion with the contemporary Roman governor Rufus, but ibn Daud's account is rather strange. Koziva (Kochba) revolts in the time of Domitian and the revolt is continued by his son Rufus and his grandson Romulus. Hadrian makes war against Romulus ben Rufus ben Koziva and kills him in the sack of Betar. (Source Richard Marks The Image of Bar Kokhba)

It is unlikely that this has any relation to the historical Simon bar Kochba.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew Criddle

[dayandhour]

Thank you Andrew.
Your final statement "It is unlikely that this has any relation to the historical Simon bar Kochba" seems well grounded and it probably puts the "Simon of Cyrene = Simon Bar Kochba" discussion to bed..

[Giuseppe]

There would be some logical contradiction in your reply.

I have speculated about Bar Kochba etc withouth knowing nothing before now about what says a certain ''Ibrahim ibn Daud in the Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qabbalah) in c 1161 CE'' and sincerely this doesn't interest me.

My view is that CYRENE alludes to REBEL Jewish Diaspora and SIMON to REBEL leader in Israel (beyond he was the same Bar Kochba or others). The Jewish rebel, IN or OUT Israel, causes the foreign domination from the times of ALEXANDER the Great, first hellenist invasor, until the times of Roman governor RUFUS, i.e. the times when Mark was written. Therefore Symon of Cyrene is a negative figure and this is the antithesis:

two men bear the cross: Jesus and Simon.

Jesus IS innocent but he SEEMS guilty.

Simon of Cyrene IS guilty but he SEEMS innocent.

[Tsadi Waw Mem Taw]

"Cyren is for me prima facie symbol of a Jewish revolt repressed in a country far distant from Israel.
Simon is Simon bar Kochba.

Alexander is the FIRST Greek that taked Judea.

Rufus is the name of LAST roman governor of Judea, at time of bar Kochba's rebellion (when the Gospels were written)."

"“But probably the most remarkable person we see
mentioned in the Gospel is Simon of Cyrene (Matt.
27, 32, Mark 15, 21, Luke 23, 26).
This Is the real name of the famous Bar-Cocheba,
and Mark adds, ''The father of Alexander and Rufus;"
and these are the names of Bar-Cocheba's children,
and therefore there is hardly any doubt but
that it refers to that famous hero ; and the words,
'' And on him they laid the cross, that he might bear
it after Jesus," has a significant figurative meaning.
We do not know of any other person in history to
whom these words can be better applied than to this
famous hero. He truly bore the cross after Jesus.
Like him he claimed to be a Messiah, and like him
he suffered death for his claim.
There are several other places in the Gospel
which we may point out in favor of our theory, but I
think, that what I have already adduced, will be sufficient
to convince any intelligent man that the Zealots,
and the Christians, were one and the same sect.
(See Art. The Chronology).”

- "New Discoveries in the Origin of the New Testament" by E.A. Walter, 1.1.1900

Interesting. Thanks for this, and welcome to the forum.

No problem.