First a note about the competing explanations in this Forum for the offending verse:
Mark 15:21
["bear" is a mistranslation. The word is "take up"]
An explanation based primarily on the Internal is exponentially better evidence than an explanation based primarily on the External. Also, an explanation with criteria is evidence. An explanation without criteria is just proof-texting. Those here trying to explain 15:21 primarily based on External and without criteria are a long way from "Mark's" Kingdom.And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross. (ASV)
Regarding criteria to weigh the evidence of identified parallels consistency is what gives weight to conclusions. Does the offending verse illustrate a theme of GMark and is the theme important? Is the specific illustrated parallel repeated elsewhere Internally. Theme is motivation and motivation is an evidence multiplier. Repetition is also a multiplier (so to speak). Multipliers give scope and scope is what's needed for good conclusions.
Applying all this to GMark, if this was the only instance in GMark of someone defined by their children, any explanation would be speculative. At the other extreme, the stronger the pattern of doing this in GMark, the more weight can be given to logical explanations.
I've already demonstrated Literary Criticism evidence that in General "Mark" (author) used names as a literary device (Fiction) in a number of ways:
http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title= ... tyle#Names
Specifically, for the offending verse:
Simon Kyrenian, who is obviously replacing Simon Petros, by following Jesus and taking up his stake, is defined by his children. A definition rarer in the ancient world than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel. Note in the big picture that "Mark" has rightly divided his Gospel into Ministry verses Passion. As usual, "Mark's" source is Paul. Paul's theology was that Jesus' Passion defined the Jewish Bible. The Revelation determined the history so that the usual relationship is Bauckwards. Paul started with revelation of Jesus and than looked for him in the Jewish Bible.15:21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross.
"Mark" associates Jesus' Ministry with the traditional understanding of the Jewish Bible. In this ministry everyone is defined by their fathers. Go through "Mark" up to the Passion and I have faith that everyone who is defined is so defined. "Mark's" literary transition is who is David's Lord's/Son?
Mark 12
"Mark's" Jesus explains that it is not the Christ who is defined by being the son of David but David who is defined by being the Father of the Christ.35 And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
37 David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Once the Passion starts all who are defined are defined by their children:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15
Mark 15:21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross.
Mark 15:40 And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
"Mark" was communicating that Jesus' Ministry was based on ancestors' tradition and Jesus' Passion would be based on a new Generation. The past Fathers would be defined based on their children.Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
To be clear, all of the above is just Literary Criticism so it does not prove anything. Only Source Criticism could prove something and since "Mark" is anonymous and Christianity attributed "Mark" based on motivation and not evidence, no one can prove what 15:21 means. The above is evidence though that 15:21's use of names is fiction. Again, explanations for 15:21 based primarily on the External and no criteria are not evidence but just speculation.
A related Framing technique of "Mark" is that he assigns the emotion of Anger to Jesus at the start and finish of the Galilean Ministry. He assigns the emotion of Love to Jesus at the start and finish of his Judean Ministry. So the key emotion of the traditional Ministry of the Jewish Bible was Anger and the key emotion of the Passion Ministry was Love. Marcion must have loved that and we see once again that the distance between the original Gospel and Marcion is less than the Traditional Christian Fathers have led us to believe.
The son of Bauckham's position that the sons of Simon were witnesses could never be more than rank speculation, more unreasonable than anything outhouse has ever said here, because:
- 1) The thought that they witnessed a story with a primary assertion that Jesus was resurrected by witnessing that they never witnessed that Jesus was resurrected, is ridiculous. Anyone who is doing this is doing what Paul did. Starting with the belief that there is witness in GMark and than looking for evidence.
2) GMark is clearly written to people who did not know Jesus' witness.
3) GMark is anti-historical witness in style.
4) The best placement of GMark is Rome and it is unlikely that relatives from the Israel setting were there with "Mark".
Joseph
ErrancyWiki