Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Ben C. Smith]

"Mark" says "Simon, take up Jesus' cross".

"Mark" says "Simon, carry Jesus' cross".

"Simon, witness the crucifixion".

Uh, "Mark" didn't saay.

Joe, I confess to not being quite sure what you are saying here. I can guess, but it would be just that, a guess.

One of the links that Peter Kirby listed was to a brief discussion by you on this same topic, and I confess that understood you there even less than I think I do here. I did not understand the point you were trying to make about Mark using the adjectival demonym instead of the genitive of place or origin, with or without the definite article. Nor did I understand what you meant by Matthew and Luke rightly dividing the Marcan phrase (though it sounds a bit like an allusion to a verse in 2 Timothy).

I am sorry, but I have no cogent thoughts on what you are saying, because I am not sure I have understood what you are saying.

Ben.

[maryhelena]

Thanks for the links. I am going through them now. I had read some of them before, but only about half. My apologies to maryhelena for starting this thread without realizing that she had done much the same thing, responding to your talking points just as I am; hers was one of the threads I had not read yet.

I may have some thoughts after perusing the threads.

Ben.

No apology needed! New input to the topic is always welcome...

[Secret Alias]

But doesn't the fact that Simon ultimately is understood to have been crucified in Jesus's place (or 'as' Jesus) somewhat negate any value for the historical Jesus that Simon might seem to possess? The Basilideans were rather early.

[Ben C. Smith]

But doesn't the fact that Simon ultimately is understood to have been crucified in Jesus's place (or 'as' Jesus) somewhat negate any value for the historical Jesus that Simon might seem to possess? The Basilideans were rather early.

How does this negation work? If Mark wrote his gospel to people who knew Alexander and Rufus, how does anything the Basilideans do later (even if only a little bit later) alter what came before? It seems to me that the only way what the Basilideans thought could change things for us is if we had reason to believe that they were right, and Mark was wrong, about the crucifixion; in that case, we might suspect that Mark would not include a detail (Jesus being crucified) that his readership might know, through Alexander and Rufus, to be false (their father having been the one crucified). If the Basilideans were wrong, however, about the crucifixion (for whatever reason), then why can Mark not be right about it (at least so far as Simon and his sons are concerned)?

Unless I have misunderstood your point, in which case please elucidate.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Found on Facebook:

Peter, I enjoyed your blog on the best case for a historical Jesus. I believe that Mark 15:21 identifying Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus provides a chiastic match with James and John being identified as the sons of Zebedee at Mark 1:19. The entire beginning of the Gospel from 1:2 - 1:38 chiastically matches the Passion from Jesus' arrest at 14:41 to the women fleeing the tomb at 16:8. The symbolism is that Jesus calls his first disciples soon after the voice in heaven (God) acknowledged Jesus as his son. Then at the Passion the reader knows God by the works of his son. It could be that Matthew and Luke did not realized the chiasm and so dropped Alexander and Rufus as being unnecessary. I realize that just because there is a literary purpose in identifying Simon by his sons does not necessarily mean that they are ahistorical, but to me it weakens the historicity argument.

I am actually curious to know who suggested this first now (unless, of course, both Neil and David just perceived this on their own), because Neil Godfrey also has very similar ideas in an old Vridar.info post, and neither mention a source other than their own analysis.

http://vridar.info/xorigins/storyechoes1.htm

1.19 2.14 3.18

Conventional for children to be identified by their parents. Compare the mirror-like reflection of the unusual parent-child identity structure (2 parents and 4 children expressed 3-fold) in the latter part of the gospel. James and John, sons of Zebedee Levi, son of Alphaeus James, son of Alphaeus

Not once but twice convention is broken with parents being identified by their children – in a similar odd pattern structure (2 parents and 4 children expressed 3-fold) as found in the early part of the gospel: Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus Mary, mother of Joses Mary, mother of James (the Younger)

15.21 15.47 16.1

[neilgodfrey]

Guilty as charged, I think. I seem to recall asking a professional scholar at the time her views on what I saw as some sort of "bookends" in Mark and as I recall she did not dispute them but left me stumped with the question: But what does it all mean? ("Duh.... I have no idea....")

The reason I find it hard to accept the common explanation (Mark's audience knew the names personally) is that it strikes me as nothing but an appeal to ignorance. Moreover, it overlooks the highly symbolic character that runs through the gospel at several levels -- structural, thematic, name puns ...... Especially puns. Commentators can rarely avoid the puns on names and places (like Bethphage, Jairus...) but then when they come across names that don't fit the larger pattern they seem to jump ship and assume something that would be completely uncharacteristic of the gospel (any gospel). I think it's more likely that we lost the associations that originally attached themselves to those exceptions.

[Ben C. Smith]

For the sake of completeness, the column on the left is missing James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James from Mark 3.17, while the column on the right is missing Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph in Mark 15.40. Can the symmetry survive these omissions?

James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, in Mark 10.35 may come too late to count in the possible pattern, but Mark 3.17 cannot come too late if Mark 3.18 counts.

I actually like the way Mark identifies Mary those three times: first by both sons, then by one son, and then finally by the other son. It seems like something I might do if I were writing the gospel.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

If we put the items you mention in the table (highlighted red and blue), the table looks like this. I guess the most relevant thing to be said in this context is that the same parents/children are being named and that the same reversal is still observed in the latter part of Mark. Not exactly a huge threat here as to whether the observation 'survives' as an interesting point to the Gospel of Mark, just as the reference in Mark 15:21 is itself interesting.

1.19 2.14 3.17 3.18

Conventional for children to be identified by their parents. James and John, sons of Zebedee Levi, son of Alphaeus James son of Zebedee, John brother of James (Boanerges) James, son of Alphaeus

Convention broken with parents identified by their children. Simon (Cyrenian), father of Alexander and Rufus Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses Mary, mother of Joses Mary, mother of James (the Less)

15.21 15.40 15.47 16.1

This has in its own way been noted in the OP.

What about the somewhat similar situation when it comes to Mary the mother of James and Joseph in Mark 15.40, 47; 16.1? I say somewhat similar because of course both Matthew and Luke copy over this datum (in 27.56 and 24.10, respectively), whereas they do not copy over Alexander and Rufus; also, Mary lacks any other identifier in the text. (Perhaps the presence of two Maries, whereas there is only one Simon and thus no grounds for confusion in his case, might have something to do with Matthew and Luke using James and Joseph; perhaps Matthew and Luke had no independent idea who this Mary was, and were forced to use the same identifier for her as their source.) Nevertheless, identifying Mary by her sons instead of by her husband or father or place of origin or what not seems conceptually the same as identifying Simon by his sons, right? Does this similarity inform our assessment of Simon and his sons as a historical datum? Does the Marcan readership know of James and Joseph, too?

[Ben C. Smith]

Neil, I like that chart of correspondences. I would have linked the spirit coming out of Jesus in Mark 15.37 with the spirit going into Jesus in Mark 1.10; the Greek morphemes are εξ and εις, which are antonyms.

With that link, the baptism contains the following parallels to the death (most of these you already have; it is just nice to see them all in one place):

1. John the baptist is an Elijah figure, and onlookers misunderstand the words of Jesus on the cross as an appeal to Elijah.
2. The heavens are rent open at the baptism, the veil at the death (same Greek verb!).
3. The spirit goes into Jesus at the baptism and goes out of him at his death.
4. Jesus is acknowledged as the son of God in both cases.
5. Baptism equals death in some mystical way (as you note with regard to Mark 10.38).

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Not exactly a huge threat here as to whether the observation 'survives' as an interesting point to the Gospel of Mark, just as the reference in Mark 15:21 is itself interesting.

To be clear, it was not the observation itself that I doubted might survive, but rather the symmetry. The original chart mentioned a similar odd pattern structure (2 parents and 4 children expressed 3-fold) and called it a mirror-like reflection; correspondingly, this chart also had one set of names expressed once with another set of names expressed twice in both columns (1+2=3, for the threefold pattern). The new chart has each set of names expressed twice in the left column (2+2=4), but one set of names expressed once and the other expressed thrice in the right column (1+3=4). The result is no longer mirror-like. I say that the original chart tried for more symmetrical precision than the text of Mark warrants; that is all. Yes, the overall observation is still interesting, and may mean something.

Ben.