Hypothesis: Our Mark introduced only the fact that Simon was moved against the his will to lead the cross on the Golgotha.
But what if Simon wanted the crucifixion of Jesus (as a person distinct from him)?
If Jesus is the demiurge, who could to want the his death on the cross could be only the his punisher, for the his crimes. But the Nag Hammadi texts report that Simon was the crucified man.
Accordingly, Alexander and Rufus would be the names of the two evildoers crucified with Jesus. Why just Alexander and Rufus were crucified? The irony is that in the real History, Alexander and Rufus are names that are prominent in Josephus as brutal Roman suppressors of Jewish rebellions and involved in the crucifixions of Jews. The suppressors became soppressed. Anti-Roman irony?
So, in proto-Mark, Jesus escaped the death and the crucified people would be Simon and the his two sons.
But even if Rufus and Alexander were not the crucified with Jesus, the fact remains that, just as Simon is helping to crucify Jesus (in the my hypothesis), also their historical avatars are de facto helping to crucify rebel Jews.
Here there would be anti-Jewish irony. Simon Magus deceived the Jews as their presumed crucified Christ.
Did the original Simon help deliberately Jesus to be crucified?
Did the original Simon help deliberately Jesus to be crucified?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Did the original Simon help deliberately Jesus to be crucified?
The feature shared by both Simon, Alexander and Rufus is to have helped to crucify someone.
Simon helped the crucifixion of Jesus by being the carrier of the cross, per Mark.
Alexander was the Roman who crucified ths sons of Judas the Galilean.
Rufus was a Egyptian Roman soldier who was the carrier of the rebel Eleazar (War of the Jews, 7:199).
But there is another feature shared by both Simon, Alexander and Rufus: they didn't pose as themselves.
Simon Magus posed as the Jewish Christ without being really him.
A freed posed as king Alexander without being really him (War, 2:106).
Terentius Rufus simulated to be impressed by Simon ben Jora to meet him, but he caught him (War, 7:31).
Simon helped the crucifixion of Jesus by being the carrier of the cross, per Mark.
Alexander was the Roman who crucified ths sons of Judas the Galilean.
Rufus was a Egyptian Roman soldier who was the carrier of the rebel Eleazar (War of the Jews, 7:199).
But there is another feature shared by both Simon, Alexander and Rufus: they didn't pose as themselves.
Simon Magus posed as the Jewish Christ without being really him.
A freed posed as king Alexander without being really him (War, 2:106).
Terentius Rufus simulated to be impressed by Simon ben Jora to meet him, but he caught him (War, 7:31).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Did the original Simon help deliberately Jesus to be crucified?
The explanation I find more simple now is that ''Mark'' (author) invented the figure of Simon of Cyrene to contrast the hearsay about Simon Magus being crucified in the place of Jesus.
This explanation has the merit to explain why Mark was alluding to two names (Alexander and Rufus) known in Josephus to be the names of two carriers (of crucified rebels) and of two liars posing as really not themselves.
This explanation has the merit to explain why Mark was alluding to two names (Alexander and Rufus) known in Josephus to be the names of two carriers (of crucified rebels) and of two liars posing as really not themselves.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Did the original Simon help deliberately Jesus to be crucified?
But then, who was Simon Magus, is not another name to allude to the Possessor Spirit who moved, against the his will, the man Jesus to be crucified?
The Simon Magus legend is simply another expression of the separationist christology: the higher being (the Serpent?) who moves a lower being (the demiurge?) to be crucified.
The Simon Magus legend is simply another expression of the separationist christology: the higher being (the Serpent?) who moves a lower being (the demiurge?) to be crucified.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.