Simon ''Barabbas'' and the date of Mark

[Giuseppe]

I will read the Robert Price's commentary of the Gospels (Holy Fable, Volume 2). I don't know if he is still of the view that Simon of Cyrene is a stand in for Simon Magus, in order to neutralize the Basilides'view that the crucified man was not Jesus (who was called Christ).

Considered alone, the episode of Simon of Cyrene would make a weak case for the his identity with Simon Magus.

But if we add other two similar episodes where the possibility of an allusion to Simon Magus is raised, then the chances to consider the Cyrenaic an alias of Simon Magus will increase.

I refer to the episodes of Simon the Leper and Barabbas.

Simon ''the Leper'' is mentioned in the place where Jesus is anointed Messiah. The irony is that also 'the leper' was a talmudic title to specify the Messiah: and a Messiah dying and rising. And Simon Magus was described as a leper by the his enemies.

So the point meant by ''Mark'' is that Jesus replaced another ''Messiah who suffered'': Simon.

We are said that Simon Magus claimed that he was 'Jesus called Christ'', since he suffered in Judea as the Son.

To deny that claim by Simon Magus, Mark introduced the episode of another ''Son of the Father'' (Bar-Abbas) who really didn't suffer in Judea: he was left free by desire of the scribes and pharisees. So we can explain the evolution of the other Simon - Simon ''the Leper'' - who became 'Simon the Pharisee'' in Luke.

Also in this case, the lesson is evident: the real suffering and rising Messiah was not Simon Magus, but Jesus!

What remains to be explained is the strange fact that Simon of Cyrene is the father of Alexander and Rufus.

Now, according to Irenaeus Simon Magus claimed to have appeared in Judea as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, and among the heathen as the Holy Ghost.

If Simon of Cyrene is the father of Alexander and Rufus, then this is a parody of the Simon Magus's claim of being the spiritual ''Father'' of both samaritans and gentiles.

Really, ''Rufus'' was a samaritan name, also:

Rufus of Samaria was a Palestinian physician, a contemporary of Galen (second century ce), who was established in Rome.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... edMessage=


If then the evidence points to the fact that, at least for three times, ''Mark'' is going to neutralize the Gnostic claims that ''another Christ'' suffered in Judea, then the conclusion is unavoidable that Mark was written by moderate Paulines against radical (''Gnostic'') Paulines like Basilides. And this could only be in the period 120-140 CE.

In particular, Papias was despising Mark in comparison to Matthew since the latter was a more useful gospel than Mark against the Gnostic enemies. Even if both Mark and Matthew came from the same general camp (the anti-Gnostic camp).

[Giuseppe]

Simon Magus suffered in Judea according to the same Simonians.

He's Ireneus who denied that Simon Magus suffered in Judea.

3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered.

The sense of the words of Ireneus is that ''he was thought'' by the same Simonians ''to have suffered in Judæa'' , while Ireneus claims that ''he had not suffered''.

So the case for the identity 'Simon the Leper'=Simon Magus is more strong.

[Giuseppe]

Another subtle clue that Simon the Leper is Simon Magus: he despised the woman as a prostitute.

This is a parody of the Simon's recognition of the "prostitute" Helen in Tyrus.

[Giuseppe]

Another subtle clue that Simon of Cyrene was a parody of Simon Magus.

The need of another bearer of the cross is an effect of the end of the mocking of Jesus. See here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3875#p82677

The mocking of Jesus is "foolishness" for the Pagans (1 Cor 1:23).

But 1 Cor 1:24 continues:

but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Who is "the power of God" ?

This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.

(Acts 8:11)

So there is some irony in the fact that just when the gentile soldiers end the mocking of Jesus ("foolishness for the pagans"), enters on the stage someone who alludes to the "power of God": Simon of Cyrene alias Simon Magus.

[Giuseppe]

Note the irony: the gentile soldiers mock Jesus as a mock "king of the Jews".

And Jesus mocks the Romans by appearing as the presumed "power of God": Simon of Cyrene.

A parody against a parody.

In this sense the point of Mark is that, just as Jesus is not really Simon Magus, so he is not really the "king of Jews".