Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
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"]
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)
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.

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:
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.
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.

"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
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.
"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.

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;
Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16
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.
"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.

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
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:Simon Kyrenian... is defined by his children. ... As usual, "Mark's" source is Paul. ... Once the Passion starts all who are defined are defined by their children: ...
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" 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....
Very good Joe. This could be a second allusion to Rom 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
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. (ASV)
Thanks to Peter, the Younger Wolf, here is my award winning Thread on "Mark's" (author) fictional use of names:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction
Wallack's criteria for figurative use of names:
  • 1) Recognition through reading or sound.

    2) Demonstrated style of the author.

    3) Contextual fit.

    4) Thematic fit.

    5) Lack of known literal fit.

    6) Fictional story.
The question here is what is the evidence that any part of the names in 15:21 is fiction?

The related general consideration is that since GMark as a whole consists primarily of the impossible and improbable, the default position for any possible part of GMark is that it is more likely fiction than history. Likelihood could be flipped to historical if there is any quality external evidence for the possible excerpt, but here there is none. The question than becomes, how much better is the evidence for fiction than history, and that depends on the criteria. On to the criteria:

1) Recognition through reading or sound.

We score a hit here for fiction as the main intruding name is "Simon" which is in fact the most used name in the Gospel.

2) Demonstrated style of the author.

Another hit as here the father is identified by the children which is always the presentation once the Passion starts.

We also have the presentation of the name, "Simon Kyrenian", which is odd for the ancient author, but not for "Mark". "Mark" in fact uses all kinds of expanded variations of "Simon" except for any that would be expected.

3) Contextual fit.

And another hit as at the narrative level there is no reason to mention the sons.

4) Thematic fit.

A solid hit here as "Mark" has a major theme of discrediting Simon and previously, after labeling Simon with an epic fail, provided a formula for disciple success of "taking up the cross" (as anachronistic as they get), and in the offending verse, has another Simon "take up" (same Greek word) Jesus' cross.

The "passing by" theme is a popular one of "Mark" between Jesus and disciples.

Statistically, it's unlikely that it would have been someone from outside Jerusalem traveling into Jerusalem after the Passover has started. If this Simon was Jewish than he should not have been traveling. If he was not Jewish than it's unlikely a non-Jew was more likely to be around here at this time than a Jew. An outside Simon though, "taking up the cross", and replacing the inside Simon, fits Markan theme very well. We also have an image of this Simon being the last to follow Jesus which fits another major theme of "Mark" of the first, Simon Peter, being the last, and the last, Simon Kyrenian, being the first to "follow" (by taking up the cross) Jesus.

"Bear" is a mistranslation. The word is "take up". So "Mark" has replaced the literal "carry" with a figurative word.

5) Lack of known literal fit.

Hit as there is no other ancient example of someone at random being forced to carry the stake.

"Alexander" is a Greek name (the most popular one of the time) and "Rufus" is a Latin name. Is there any other ancient example of this?

6) Fictional story.

Hit it. The overall crucifixion story is possible but unlikely. There is no extant evidence that any Jew outside of Jesus was crucified in the first part of the first century and no reason to expect it.

Thus the fictional criteria here are reading high for likely fiction. Again, the above proves nothing and does not even mean that fiction here is probable. The lack of Source Criticism evidence makes any conclusion possible. What the criteria do do here though is make fiction more likely than history relative to each other.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8022
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by Peter Kirby »

JoeWallack wrote:"Alexander" is a Greek name (the most popular one of the time) and "Rufus" is a Latin name. Is there any other ancient example of this?
It was actually a common practice for people to have names in multiple languages. (I've cited references before. Trust me on this.)

Biblical examples include John Mark, etc. One is a birth name; the other is an adopted name.

You see something like this happen still today, especially with immigrants who find their native names too cumbersome for others to pronounce, albeit the modern practice usually has people trying to find phonetically similar names (the ancient one did not).

So if the boys had semitic names, like their father Simon, then they both adopted names in the civilized languages, one in Greek and one in Latin.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

I will add my own suggestion. I was rethinking your post and mine a bit and made some little corrections.
JoeWallack wrote:An explanation based primarily on the Internal is exponentially better evidence than an explanation based primarily on the External.
Yeah, not the External.

What's the other Greek name?
What's the meaning of the two names?
Let´s add Paul's Rufus and then I think "Case Closed"
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by Bernard Muller »

The offending verse:

15:21

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
29 [e] angareuousin ἀγγαρεύουσιν they compel V-PIA-3P
3855 [e] paragonta παράγοντά passing by V-PPA-AMS
5100 [e] tina τινα one, IPro-AMS
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνα Simon N-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον of Cyrene, N-AMS
2064 [e] erchomenon ἐρχόμενον coming V-PPM/P-AMS
575 [e] ap’ ἀπ’ from Prep
68 [e] agrou ἀγροῦ, the country, N-GMS
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
3962 [e] patera πατέρα father N-AMS
223 [e] Alexandrou Ἀλεξάνδρου of Alexander N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
4504 [e] Rhouphou Ῥούφου, Rufus, N-GMS
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
142 [e] arē ἄρῃ he might carry V-ASA-3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν cross N-AMS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ. of him. PPro-GM3S


Note that the offending word ἄρῃ is mistranslated as he might carry. The meaning is http://biblehub.com/greek/142.htm "take up".

"Mark's" (author) Jesus had previously provided a formula for disciple success to another Simon:

8:34

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

34 And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and
take up
his cross, and follow me.
The so-called offending word is used many times by gospel authors, including 22 times by "Mark".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

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. (ASV)
15:21

,
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
29 [e] angareuousin ἀγγαρεύουσιν they compelV-PIA-3P
3855 [e] paragonta παράγοντά passing by V-PPA-AMS
5100 [e] tina τινα one, IPro-AMS
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνα Simon N-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον [1]of Cyrene, N-AMS
2064 [e] erchomenon ἐρχόμενον coming V-PPM/P-AMS
575 [e] ap’ ἀπ’ from Prep
68 [e] agrou ἀγροῦ, the country, N-GMS
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
3962 [e] patera πατέρα father N-AMS
223 [e] Alexandrou Ἀλεξάνδρου of Alexander N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
4504 [e] Rhouphou Ῥούφου, Rufus, N-GMS
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
142 [e] arē ἄρῃ [2]he might carry V-ASA-3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν [3]cross N-AMS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ. of him. PPro-GM3S

Textual Criticism:
[1]No genitive form here. The better translation is "Simon Kyrenian".

[2]The better translation is "take up".

[3]"Cross" is anachronistic. The better translation is "stake".

Reaction of ancient witness:

Matthew 27:32

http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-32.htm

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
1831 [e] Exerchomenoi Ἐξερχόμενοι going forth V-PPM/P-NMP
1161 [e] de δὲ moreover, Conj
2147 [e] heuron εὗρον they found V-AIA-3P
444 [e] anthrōpon ἄνθρωπον [1]a man N-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον, [1]of Cyrene, N-AMS
3686 [e] onomati ὀνόματι [1]named N-DNS
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνα· [1]Simon. N-AMS
3778 [e] touton τοῦτον him DPro-AMS
29 [e] ēngareusan ἠγγάρευσαν they compelled V-AIA-3P
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
142 [e] arē ἄρῃ [2]he might carry V-ASA-3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν cross N-AMS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ. of him. PPro-GM3S

Commentary:
[1]"Matthew" (author) changes "Mark's" (author) "Simon Kyrenian" to Simon of Cyrene. Evidence that "Matthew" thought "Mark" was unusual here.

[2]"Matthew" copies "Mark's" figurative word here.

[3]"Matthew" has exorcised the phrase "father of Alexander and Rufus". As has been noticed Ad Nazorean in this Thread, presenting a character via mentioning the sons instead of the father and having sons in a Jewish setting with a Greek and Roman name would be unorthodox (so to speak). Sounds more like that scene of The French castle in England from The Holy Grail than a historical observation.

[4] "Matthew" has likewise exorcised the reference to this Simon coming into from outside which again sounds no more historical than [3].

In summary, for the offending verse, "Matthew" has transformed "Mark" into a more historical sounding, less fictional sounding verse. Perhaps that was "Matthew's" intent.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

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. (ASV)
15:21

,
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
29 [e] angareuousin ἀγγαρεύουσιν they compelV-PIA-3P
3855 [e] paragonta παράγοντά passing by V-PPA-AMS
5100 [e] tina τινα one, IPro-AMS
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνα Simon N-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον [1]of Cyrene, N-AMS
2064 [e] erchomenon ἐρχόμενον coming V-PPM/P-AMS
575 [e] ap’ ἀπ’ from Prep
68 [e] agrou ἀγροῦ, the country, N-GMS
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
3962 [e] patera πατέρα father N-AMS
223 [e] Alexandrou Ἀλεξάνδρου of Alexander N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
4504 [e] Rhouphou Ῥούφου, Rufus, N-GMS
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
142 [e] arē ἄρῃ [2]he might carry V-ASA-3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν [3]cross N-AMS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ. of him. PPro-GM3S

Textual Criticism:
[1]No genitive form here. The better translation is "Simon Kyrenian".

[2]The better translation is "take up".

[3]"Cross" is anachronistic. The better translation is "stake".

Reaction of ancient witness:

Luke 23:26

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/23-26.htm

] [/td]
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] Kai Καὶ And Conj
5613 [e] hōs ὡς as Adv
520 [e] apēgagon ἀπήγαγον they led away V-AIA-3P
846 [e] auton αὐτόν, him, PPro-AM3S
1949 [e] epilabomenoi ἐπιλαβόμενοι having laid hold on V-APM-NMP
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνά [1]Simon, N-AMS
5100 [e] tina τινα [1]a certain IPro-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον [1]of Cyrene, N-AMS
2064 [e] erchomenon ἐρχόμενον coming V-PPM/P-AMS
575 [e] ap’ ἀπ’ from Prep
68 [e] agrou ἀγροῦ the country, N-GMS
2007 [e] epethēkan ἐπέθηκαν [2]they put upon V-AIA-3P
846 [e] autō αὐτῷ [2]him PPro-DM3S
3588 [eton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν cross, N-AMS
5342 [e] pherein φέρειν [3]to carry [it] V-PNA
3693 [e] opisthen ὄπισθεν behind Prep
3588 [e] tou τοῦ - Art-GMS
2424 [e] Iēsou Ἰησοῦ. [5]Jesus. N-GMS

Commentary:
[1]"Luke" (author) changes "Mark's" (author) "Simon Kyrenian" to "a certain Simon of Cyrene". Evidence that "Luke" thought "Mark" was unusual here.

[2]"Luke" exorcises the figurative "Simon taking up the cross" and replaces with "it was put on him".

[3]"Luke" has replaced "take up" with the literal sounding "carry".

[4]"Luke", like "Matthew", has exorcised the phrase "father of Alexander and Rufus". As has been noticed Ad Nazorean in this Thread, presenting a character via mentioning the sons instead of the father and having sons in a Jewish setting with a Greek and Roman name would be unorthodox (so to speak). Sounds more like that scene of The French castle in England from The Holy Grail than a historical observation.

[5]"Luke" replaces "Mark's" "him" with "Jesus". During the supposed crucifixion "Mark" appears to reserve the use of "Jesus" to the man Jesus (as opposed to the spirit "Christ"). "Luke" edits to add in a number of "Jesuses". Evidence that "Mark" was not just understood as Separationist by Gnostics but was Separationist.

In summary, for the offending verse, "Luke" has transformed "Mark" into an even more historical sounding, less fictional sounding verse than "Matthew". Perhaps that was "Luke's" intent.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2879
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by maryhelena »

By ditching the two sons of Simon, from Cyrene, gMatthew and gLuke have neutralized the story. It's the two sons that identify the father. It's what happened to the two sons that brought a new identity to the father. i.e. the tables are turned when a son becomes more famous than the father. The father becomes the father of the famous figure instead of the famous figure being known as the son of the unknown father.

Why would gMatthew and gLuke seek to neutralize the story about Simon and his two sons? One reason could be that the gMark story relates to the historical figures of Aristobulus, Alexander and Antigonus. History is being slowly but surely put on the back burner as gMatthew and gLuke update the Jesus story to suit their own time frames. Time frames in which Hasmonean history was to be set aside in view of the prospect of taking the Jesus story to the Gentiles. Politics and nationalism not being the way to move forward....

viewtopic.php?p=29322#p29322
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Remember Jon Jon. How Mary Cried The Night They Found Him De

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

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. (ASV)
15:21

,
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
29 [e] angareuousin ἀγγαρεύουσιν they compelV-PIA-3P
3855 [e] paragonta παράγοντά passing by V-PPA-AMS
5100 [e] tina τινα one, IPro-AMS
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνα Simon N-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον [1]of Cyrene, N-AMS
2064 [e] erchomenon ἐρχόμενον coming V-PPM/P-AMS
575 [e] ap’ ἀπ’ from Prep
68 [e] agrou ἀγροῦ, the country, N-GMS
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
3962 [e] patera πατέρα father N-AMS
223 [e] Alexandrou Ἀλεξάνδρου of Alexander N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
4504 [e] Rhouphou Ῥούφου, Rufus, N-GMS
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
142 [e] arē ἄρῃ [2]he might carry V-ASA-3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν [3]cross N-AMS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ. of him. PPro-GM3S

Textual Criticism:
[1]No genitive form here. The better translation is "Simon Kyrenian".

[2]The better translation is "take up".

[3]"Cross" is anachronistic. The better translation is "stake".

Reaction of ancient witness:

John 19:17

http://biblehub.com/text/john/19-17.htm

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
941 [e] bastazōn βαστάζων [3]bearing V-PPA-NMS
1438 [e] heautō ἑαυτῷ [2][his] own RefPro-DM3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν - Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν cross, N-AMS
1831 [e] exēlthen ἐξῆλθεν he went out V-AIA-3S
1519 [e] eis εἰς to Prep
3588 [e] ton τὸν the [place] Art-AMS

Commentary:
[1]"John" (author) exorcises "Simon" completely thus removing all fictional sounding (so to speak) elements ("Simon Kyrenian", coming from the country, defined by sons and having sons with a Greek and Latin name).

[2]"John's" Jesus carries his own dead weight. A straight-forward narrative would have no reason to add that he carried his own cross since that was standard for crucifixion. "John's" mention than sounds like a reaction to "Mark".

[3]"John" has replaced "take up" with the literal sounding "bear".

In summary, for the offending verse, "John" has transformed "Mark" into an even more historical sounding, less fictional sounding verse than "Matthew"/"Luke". Perhaps that was "John's" intent.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Post Reply