How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

[Paul the Uncertain]

@mlinssen

Asked and answered, counselor.

If you don't cotton to my argument, then perhaps you have some thoughts of your own about how "Josephus" could learn about John's death or "Mark" about Jesus's.

I'd be delighted to read them.


@maryhelena

historicity requires historical evidence.

We haven't reached questions of historicity. We're discussing received texts. That's all the evidence there is that Josephus or pseudo-Josephus mentioned Jews who play no role in John's life or death adjacent to an acount of John's lfe and death. That's all the evidence there is that Mark mentions two men who play no role in the crucifixion adjacent to an account of the crucifixion.

We don't know and can't ask why the authors did anything. We can, however, catalog what effects the black marks on the page attributed to them might have on thoughtful readers. Whether the authors intended those effects isn't our problem. If they did intend an effect, whether the effect was meant to enhance fiction or explain fact-claims isn't our problem (yet).

The Markan figures of Simon of Cyrene and his two sons. =. no historical evidence.
The Josephan figure of John the baptizer. =. no historical evidence.

That's why we reason by cases. If the respective authors made up these characters, then an effect of the non-particpating characters is to enhance verisimilitude. If the authors believe thess characters are historical people, then an effect of the characters is to provide a foundation for some fact claims.

Either way, citing the otherwise irrelevant mention of these non-paticipants is a responsive answer to a reader's question "How could the author (or the narrator character) possibly know such a thing?"

The reader's question is equally well-posed whether the work is realistic fiction or non-fiction. Although we do not know which, we observe that at least one or the other obtains, or perhaps a hybrid (e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter).

verification

If as and when additional evidence arrives, then we'll incorporate it into our estimate of justified confidence in the stories. Meanwhile, we're discussing the evidence we actually have.

[neilgodfrey]

Meanwhile, we're discussing the evidence we actually have.

The "evidence we actually have" is the Gospel of Mark that is found to play with names, playing with puns, both geographical and personal. The context of these word-plays are theological twists and turns. We have an abundance of evidence of that sort of thing throughout Mark's gospel.

We also have the curious coincidence of a good number of the names coinciding with names of prominent persons in the Jewish war of 66-73 CE.

Simon is a prominent name the war and also as a target of puns and reversals in the gospel.

Given this evidence-observed tendency in Mark's use of names in his gospel, it is a reasonable assumption to think that he was similarly using the names Alexander and Rufus in the same way -- as puns and/or as theological ciphers of some kind. That's what we would expect given that that is what is found in Mark's use of the other names in his work.

Now there are some things about the gospel that have been lost to us. We can guess (but no more than that) about the evidence that has been lost. One of the pieces of evidence that is now lost to us is a clear pointer to the functions of Alexander and Rufus as names for Mark.

So we can assume that the names Alexander and Rufus were known to the primary target audience of the gospel and that they understood the wordplay Mark was using as he used for other names.

That assumption seems a fairly simple one-step assumption that is supported by the evidence of Mark's other use of names.

Or we can assume that Mark was writing for a particular readership that happened to know an Alexander and Rufus who were historical figures known in flesh and blood to them all, and that he did not expect his work to take on a wider readership so he did not bother to explain in his text who those two men were, and that he broke away from his otherwise consistent habit to introduce persons who did not fit in with any wordplay but were introduced because they were known to a local readership, even though their presence added nothing at all to the story, even though Mark is nowhere else evidently interested in "historical data for historical data's sake".

I think that second assumption is more problematic than the first one I proposed.

(Sometimes a well-posed question does not get an answer despite its admirable pose. We can ask who is buried in an old unmarked grave but if all the evidence that is necessary to answer that question is lost, it cannot be answered, and re-posing the question in all sorts of decorative and appealing ways won't change that situation.)

[maryhelena]

@maryhelena

historicity requires historical evidence.

We haven't reached questions of historicity. We're discussing received texts. That's all the evidence there is that Josephus or pseudo-Josephus mentioned Jews who play no role in John's life or death adjacent to an acount of John's lfe and death. That's all the evidence there is that Mark mentions two men who play no role in the crucifixion adjacent to an account of the crucifixion.

Evidence for two stories.

We don't know and can't ask why the authors did anything. We can, however, catalog what effects the black marks on the page attributed to them might have on thoughtful readers. Whether the authors intended those effects isn't our problem. If they did intend an effect, whether the effect was meant to enhance fiction or explain fact-claims isn't our problem (yet).

Thoughtful readers....so open to a readers interpretation of the words on the page

The Markan figures of Simon of Cyrene and his two sons. =. no historical evidence.
The Josephan figure of John the baptizer. =. no historical evidence.

That's why we reason by cases. If the respective authors made up these characters, then an effect of the non-particpating characters is to enhance verisimilitude. If the authors believe thess characters are historical people, then an effect of the characters is to provide a foundation for some fact claims.

Either way, citing the otherwise irrelevant mention of these non-paticipants is a responsive answer to a reader's question "How could the author (or the narrator character) possibly know such a thing?"

ah, but your thoughtful reader might view the Markan story as an allegory.....

The reader's question is equally well-posed whether the work is realistic fiction or non-fiction. Although we do not know which, we observe that at least one or the other obtains, or perhaps a hybrid (e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter).

verification

If as and when additional evidence arrives, then we'll incorporate it into our estimate of justified confidence in the stories. Meanwhile, we're discussing the evidence we actually have.

Thoughtful reader of the gMark story about Simon from Cyrene and his two sons Alexander and Rufus:
===============================

maryhelena on Simon the Cyrenean and his sons Alexander and Rufus:

Mark 15:21. A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.

Cyrenean = Cyrene, in 74 BC, was created a Roman province; but, whereas under the Ptolemies the Jewish inhabitants had enjoyed equal rights, they now found themselves increasingly oppressed by the now autonomous and much larger Greek population. Tensions came to a head in the insurrection of the Jews of Cyrene under Vespasian (73 AD, the First Roman-Jewish War'')

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrene,_L ... man_period.....

Cyrene is relevant to the gospel Simon story for it being a place of Jewish insurrection and a Jewish High Priest was executed there.

ISHMAEL BEN PHABI (FIABI) II.

'Being one of the foremost ten citizens of Jerusalem sent on an embassy to Emperor Nero, he was detained by the empress at Rome as a hostage. He was beheaded in Cyrene after the destruction of Jerusalem, and is glorified by the Mishnah teachers (Parah iii. 5; Soṭah ix. 15; Pes. 57a; Yoma 35b).'

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... i-fiabi-ii

''Ishmael ben Fabus also known as Ishmael ben Phiabi was a High Priest of Israel in the 1st centur
He was a descendant of John Hyrcanus Maccabee Prince of Judea.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_ben_Fabus

Last High Priest to make the Red Heifer sacrifice.

Ishmael ben Fabus

'The first Moses made, the second Ezra made, and five from Ezra and onward, according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Seven [were made] from Ezra and onward; and who made them? Shimon the righteous and Yochanan the high priest made two each, Elyehoeinai ben Hakof and Chanamel the Egyptian and Yishmael ben Pi'avi made one each.'

http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Parah.3. ... arLang=all

Josephus says that among those who went over to the Romans were '......... three of high priestly stock, sons of the Ishmael who was beheaded in Cyrene'. War: book 6 ch.2. These sons are not named. Consequently, although what happened in Cyrene is relevant to the gospel Simon story, the historicity and the fate of the sons of ISHMAEL BEN PHABI cannot be established. However, like Cyrene, the city of Jerusalem also experienced revolts and execution of its last High Priest and King. Josephus detail the fate of Aristobulus II and his sons Alexander of Judaea and Antigonus II Mattathias.

Simon = Aristobulus II. 'Caesar.....Aristobulus he sent home to Palestine to accomplish something against Pompey'. Cassius Dio book 41. He was coming in to Judea when taken by those in Pompey's party and poisoned. - 49 b.c.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_II

(of note re the use of the name *Simon* - Simon Maccabeus. He became the first prince of the Hebrew Hasmonean Dynasty. He reigned from 142 to 135 BCE.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thassi

Alexander = Alexander of Judaea, son of Aristobulus II. 'Alexander,…was seized at the command of Pompey, and beheaded at Antioch.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Judaea

(of note re the use of the name *Alexander* - Alexander Jannaeus, Hasmonean King reported to have crucified 800. Alexander of Judaea being his grandson.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus

Rufus = colour red, blood, sacrifice = Red Heifer Sacrifice.This name/designation is given to the second son of Simon the Cyrenean. The second son of Aristobulus II was Antigonus II Mattathias.

'Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

(of note is that like the High Priest Ishmael ben Fabus, Antigonus was executed in a foreign country - Syrian Antioch. Note also that Ishmael ben Fabus was the last High Priest to make the Red Heifer sacrifice. )

The Red Heifer sacrifice:

'Even after it ceased entirely, however, the rabbis still regarded its regulations as of importance in teaching a profound lesson. With its contradictory "regulations" rendering the unclean clean and the clean unclean, it was regarded as a classic example of a ḥukkah (i.e., a statute for which no rational explanation can be adduced, but which must be observed because it is divinely commanded).'

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 16546.html

'The early Jewish conception was that the sacrifice of the red heifer was an expiatory rite to atone for the sin of the golden calf. The color of the heifer, as well as the scarlet thrown upon the fire, represents sin (comp. "your sins be as scarlet"; Isa. i. 18).'

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... red-heifer

(note: The gospel story of Simon the Cyrenean and his two sons, is an allegory referencing a city that experienced Jewish revolts and the execution of a Jewish High Priest. The gospel story relates to the city of Jerusalem; a city that also experienced revolts against Rome and execution of its last High Priest and King . Thus, figures, historical figures relevant to Jewish history are implicated. Hasmonean/Jewish history, re Josephus, relates a Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews. This execution became, through the principle inherent in the Red Heifer sacrifice, something clean instead of being unclean, cursed as in under the Law. Note the vision of Peter (in Acts) regarding transforming the unclean into the clean via dictate from heaven. Not of course, declaring human blood sacrifice to be 'clean' - but of a change of context from physical reality to heavenly/philosophical/intellectual reality. The Jerusalem above mirroring the Jerusalem below with the exception that only in the Jerusalem above would 'blood' sacrifice have salvation value. Jewish tragedy was transformed into a victorious Christian theology/philosophy.

The gospel crucifixion story is not history. Neither the Jesus figure, nor the figures of Simon the Cyrenean and his two sons are historical figures. What the gospel writers have done is use Hasmonean/Jewish history in a political allegory for their Jesus crucifixion story.

here
=============================
The Simon, from Cyrene, story being a political allegory referencing Hasmonean history. Two sons executed by Rome. The father probably poisoned by those related to Pompey's army. Thus, Jesus, executed by Rome (with the sign above the cross - King of the Jews) takes his place alongside those of the Hasmonean royal house executed by Rome - symbolically or allegory represented by Simon and his sons Alexander and Rufus.

Simon from Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus. Simon is coming in from the country when Roman soldiers compelled him to carry the cross of Jesus. Mark 15:21-27.	Simon is defined as the father of his sons rather than the sons being defined as the sons of the father. i.e. the sons are more prominent than the father.	gMark story. Jesus is scourged and hung on a cross/stake; the charge being: King of the Jews.	The name of the second son, Rufus, being linked with the colour red, (blood, sacrifice) is a possible reflection of the OT red heifer sacrifice.
Aristobulus II, father of Alexander and Antigonus. 'Caesar.....Aristobulus he sent home to Palestine to accomplish something against Pompey'. Cassius Dio book 41. He was coming in to Judea when taken by those in Pompey's party and poisoned. - 49 b.c.e.	Alexander II 'In the year 49-48 B.C. Alexander, by direct command of Pompey, was beheaded at Antioch by Q. Metellus Scipio,'. Alexander being the grandson of Alexander Jannaeus - Hasmonean King reported to have crucified 800.	Antigonus II. Antigonus, was hung on a pole, scourged and throat cut by the Roman, Marc Antony in 37 b.c.e. (at Antioch). Cassius Dio. Book 49. Josephus Ant. Book 15.	The history of Antigonus becomes the 'model' for the gospel pseudo-historical Jesus crucifixion story. The red heifer OT sacrifice the medium, the justification, for turning the curse of the cross into a salvation theology. i.e. turning, transforming the unclean into the clean.

here
==============================

If it's the name *Alexander* that is deemed to be relevant here then why not look at Hasmonean/Jewish history? Alexander of Judaea was captured by Pompey and beheaded at Antioch around 48/47 b.c.e. That history, from Josephus, a writer claiming Hasmonean descent, is surely of far more relevance to a gospel writer dealing with a Roman execution than the history of Alexander the Great.

As for Cyrene, after the war of 70 c.e, the Jewish High Priest, Ishmael was beheaded there. Ishmael was the last High Priest to offer the red heifer sacrifice.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 936#p28936

ISHMAEL BEN PHABI (FIABI) II.

High priest under Agrippa II.; not to be identified (as by Grätz and Schürer) with the high priest of the same name who was appointed by Valerius Gratus and who officiated during 15-16 of the common era. Ishmael was a worthy successor of the high priest Phinehas. He was appointed to the office by Agrippa in the year 59, and enjoyed the sympathy of the people. He was very rich; his mother made him, for the Day of Atonement, a priestly robe which cost 100 minæ. Ishmael at first followed the Sadducean method of burning the sacrificial red heifer, but finally authorized the procedure according to the Pharisaic teaching. Being one of the foremost ten citizens of Jerusalem sent on an embassy to Emperor Nero, he was detained by the empress at Rome as a hostage. He was beheaded in Cyrene after the destruction of Jerusalem, and is glorified by the Mishnah teachers (Parah iii. 5; Soṭah ix. 15; Pes. 57a; Yoma 35b).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... i-fiabi-ii

In the Mishna, Tractate Parah, we learn that there have been a total of nine perfectly red cows burned:
1. By Moses;
2. By Ezra;
3. By Shimon Ha Tzaddik;
4. Also by Shimon Ha Tzaddik;
5. By Yochanan, the High Priest;
6. Also by Yochanan, the High Priest;
7. By Eliehoenai, the son of Ha-Kof.
8. By Hanamel, the Egyptian.
9. By Ishmael, son of Piabi.
10. Will be burned by Mashiach.

http://www.betemunah.org/heifer.html

The first Moses made, the second Ezra made, and five from Ezra and onward, according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Seven [were made] from Ezra and onward; and who made them? Shimon the righteous and Yochanan the high priest made two each, Elyehoeinai ben Hakof and Chanamel the Egyptian and Yishmael ben Pi'avi made one each.

http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Parah.3.5

The red heifer sacrifice can be viewed as an explanation of how the gospel writers were able to transform a crucifixion tragedy into a salvation theology - the triumph of the cross. The red heifer being a sacrifice that turns the unclean into the clean and the clean into the unclean. Transformation, change of context and what was once deemed to be accursed, hung on a cross/pole/stake, is turned into a spiritual salvation story. History, a literal crucifixion flesh and blood event, is turned, via the red heifer OT sacrifice theology, into the Pauline cosmic/celestial 'crucifixion' theology/philosophy. However, the NT writers did not get to step 2 without first having to deal with step 1. The historical reality of a flesh and blood King of the Jews hung on a cross/stake/pole, scourged and then having his throat slit/beheaded.

• Gal: 3.13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

Out of this cursed context the NT brought about a theology of salvation.

Interestingly, this reversal of context is highlighted in the red heifer sacrifice ritual.

Red Heifer:

Even after it ceased entirely, however, the rabbis still regarded its regulations as of importance in teaching a profound lesson. With its contradictory "regulations" rendering the unclean clean and the clean unclean, it was regarded as a classic example of a ḥukkah (i.e., a statute for which no rational explanation can be adduced, but which must be observed because it is divinely commanded).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 16546.html

Secondly, "the father of Alexander," as made famous through the claim to divine parentage that was emblazoned on his coins, was the god Zeus-Ammon. The latter part, the Egyptian god Amun, was identified with the Greek god Zeus. A composite image of the bearded Zeus and the ram-horned Ammon formed the reference to Zeus-Ammon, the father of Alexander.

Why turn to Greek mythology when Jewish history is able, via Josephus, to identify Alexander of Judaea, son of Aristobulus II and grandson of Alexander Jannaeus. (Jannaeus himself, re Josephus, responsible for the crucifixion of 800 people.) Interpreting the gMark Simon of Cyrene story requires a knowledge of Hasmonean/Jewish history plus knowledge of the OT red heifer sacrifice. It was a literal crucifixion, a historical crucifixion, a hanging on a stake/cross by a King of the Jews, that would lead the gospel writers to Numbers 19:1-10 and it's ability to turn the unclean into the clean - 'spiritual' salvation out of an 'unclean' historical tragedy. The symbolic, the literary, Jesus of the gospel story, became the red heifer that would transform the 'curse of the law' into a 'spiritual' salvation story.

here
==========================================

And Josephus, he too has a story about a father and two sons. Judas the Galilean and his two sons James and Simon - the two sons crucified under Tiberius Alexander.

And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain: I mean of that Judas, who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews; as we have shewed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon: whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.

Antiquities 20.5.2 102

Paul - it's far more interesting to let Hasmonean Jewish history have it's place in ones endeavor to understand the gospel story - and Josephus.
Thoughtful readers - or listeners to the Markan writers story about Simon from Cyrene and his two sons Alexander and Rufus - can come up with an allegorical interpretation of that story, an interpretation aided by history not wishful thinking or assumptions without foundation.

[Paul the Uncertain]

@maryhelena

Evidence for two stories.

Two stories known to early Christians concerning matters bearing on even earlier Chrisitanity. In other words, important subjects for historical inquiry in their own right, even if we knew for a fact that both were fictive, which we don't.

E.g. Could any early Christians have known about John's baptism apart from Christian sources? Did any first-generation Christians believe that Jesus's crucifixion happened on Earth? I think there have been threads devoted to similar questions here at EW.

Thoughtful readers....so open to a readers interpretation of the words on the page

All reading of natural language with comprehension is reading with interpretation.

ah, but your thoughtful reader might view the Markan story as an allegory.....

Different readers can interpret the same text differently. The same reader can appreciate the same work as allegory and as well-crafted magical realism. Or indeed as both allegory and non-fiction. E.g. there are obvious parallels between the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the German expansionism that precipitated WW II. Wherever there are parallels, there is allegorical potential.

-
Sua sponte, I notice that I was inadvertantly and uncharacteristically terse in the OP.

Who are Alexander and Rufus anyway? Does it matter?

The interpretation of the Baptist "wrapper" doesn't depend on the reader knowing which "Jews" are meant. ...

I ought to have completed the thought and added "Nor need the interpretation of the mention of Alexander and Rufus depend on the reader recognizing their names."

Like most people here, I am aware that some people propose a different role for Alexander and Rufus than mine. That is, some have argued that the sons of Simon were offered as possible information sources for Mark's first audiences.

This is obviously problematic. The same line of reasoning applied to (psedo-) Josephus would have him trying to enhance his credibility by proposing that his reader interview the unmentioned descendants of unnamed Jews. This is absurd, requiring at least special pleading to rescue any analogous role for Simon's sons in Mark.

More rigorously, since being a source for the audience implies being a source for the speaker, the audience-source hypothesis cannot be and can never become more likely than what it implies (trivial proof restating the accepted defintion of to order or rank according to plausibility).

[mlinssen]

Well

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I mention this because it is analogous to the unexplained introduction of two characters in the thick of Mark's crucifixion story, Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon of Cyrene (15:21). Simon's introduction is understandable enough, but the sons play no role in the action whatsoever. They are just "there."
...
However, Mark is differently situated. There is no presumption that he would know anything personal about any of his characters. To name a man's children, however, is on its face to imply some personal knowledge about him.

Conclusion: Mark may fairly be read as claiming to know of a real man, Simon of Cyrene, who actually lived and who witnesed the crucifixion.

imho the best I've ever read about Simon's sons was written by Joe. Mark may fairly be read that way

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.
...
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.
...
"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.

[Giuseppe]

Alexander and Rufus were introduced because they could witness that their father survived the crucifixion, so he wasn't crucified in the place of Jesus himself, pace Basilides.

Debt to Solomon Reinach for this finding.

[maryhelena]

I mention this because it is analogous to the unexplained introduction of two characters in the thick of Mark's crucifixion story, Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon of Cyrene (15:21). Simon's introduction is understandable enough, but the sons play no role in the action whatsoever. They are just "there."
...
However, Mark is differently situated. There is no presumption that he would know anything personal about any of his characters. To name a man's children, however, is on its face to imply some personal knowledge about him.

Conclusion: Mark may fairly be read as claiming to know of a real man, Simon of Cyrene, who actually lived and who witnesed the crucifixion.

imho the best I've ever read about Simon's sons was written by Joe. Mark may fairly be read that way

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.
...
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.
...
"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.

So........Literary Criticism does not prove anything regarding Simon and his two sons...

Maybe time to consider the Markan story about Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, as an allegory - and pick up a history book..... or Wikipedia..... and consider both Cyrene and Hasmonean history. Perhaps that approach can shine a bit of light on the Simon from Cyrene story. No need to give up an attempt to understand the story just because a Literary Criticism approach has failed to offer a satisfactory explanation. Literary Criticism is not the only available tool for investigating the gospel story.

[Paul the Uncertain]

@Kunigunde Kreuzerin

Howdy, good to have you aboard.

It is a tad awkward to discuss Joe's theory without Joe, given that he could discuss it here if he wanted it discussed.

Since it has come up, I'll be brief, but otherwise I'll leave Joe out of it until and unless he joins us. Of course, if you have something of your own, then we could discuss that, no problem.

From Joe, then

"Mark's" literary transition is who is David's Lord's/Son?

Why is "the literary transition" there (12:35-37) instead of at the abandonment of Jesus by his disciples, which isn't perfected until Peter (presumably) leaves the courtyard on "Good Friday" morning, (14:72, the last verse of that chapter).

What individuals are introduced in the meantine? If I've missed anybody, let me know, but of the speaking and special business parts:

The poor widow (12:42), Simon the Leper and a woman (14:3), The man with a pitcher (14:13), the master of his house (14:14), the servant of the priest (14:47), the young man (assuming that he is a character in the story, 14:51-53), the high priest (14:53 ff), the false witness(es) (14:57-58), whoever told Jesus to prophesy (14:65), a maid of the high priest (14:66), and whoever told Peter he was surely "one of them" (14:70).

The characters introduced in the first 20 verses of chapter 15 are Pilate, Barabbas (by reference), and the anonymous soldiers.

Assuming I haven't missed somebody, nobody is associated with* either a parent or a child after 12:37 and before 15:21 (when Simon, Alexander and Rufus are). Why, then, is there some "transition" related to choice of generational epithet at 12:37, rather than at 14:72, or for that matter at 15:21 itself?

Pending an answer to that question from Joe, I'll leave Joe's critique there.

I agree with Joe that naming next-generation descendants of purported witnesses to events not witnessed by characters who have the same names as Paul's apostles would likely have similar effects as naming Simon's sons. Good point.

Discussion of that point, however, might easily get caught up in the question of whether authentic Mark ends at 16:8, and if so how categorically one should read the emphatic assertion that the women told nobody.

@Giuseppe

Thank you for your reply.

Alexander and Rufus were introduced because they could witness that their father survived the crucifixion, so he wasn't crucified in the place of Jesus himself, pace Basilides.

I am unsure what point you (in debt to Reinach) want to make about Basilides. The notorious pronoun reference problem presumably dates back to Mark himself. It is not obvious that if Mark was aware of the problem, that he wouldn't simply have instantiated a few of the pronouns in the quasi-ambiguous passage. Alexander and Rufus, in contrast, don't necessarily solve the problem, since dead men are often survived by their children.

----
* I appreciate that Joe claims that Simon is "identified" by naming his sons. In my copy of Mark, Simon is "identified" as being "of Cyrene." The names of his sons is additional information, provided only after Simon has been "identified" (= already adequately distinguished from other Simons in the perforomance, like the one nicknamed Peter or the one whose epithet is "the Leper"). Whether and to what extent that complicates grouping Simon along with the women would be an example of the sort of thing I'd want to reserve for a discussion with Joe himself.

[neilgodfrey]

imho the best I've ever read about Simon's sons was written by Joe. Mark may fairly be read that way

...
"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?

. . . .

Once the Passion starts all who are defined are defined by their children:

Yes, I posted about this pattern in Mark in 2006: A Cyrenius-Cyrenian link between Josephus and Mark?.

Parents and Sons

For anyone who cannot resist the yawns and wonder why on earth Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus, can’t just be accepted as historical figures, well that’s another story for another place. One might simply give but one hint here: it was not the done thing to identify individuals by their offspring, but rather by their parents. The unusualness of Simon being identified by his sons is taken by theologians as evidence for their genuineness – if something is the same it proves it is true, if it is different it proves it is even truer, type arguments.

But if one looks at the broader literary construction of the Gospel of Mark one finds that among several bookend type inclusios (beginning and ending literary or thematic balances) is one that has at the opening 4 would-be disciples identified by their parents (James and John, Levi and another James) , while at the end we have parents identified by their 4 offspring (James the Younger and Joses, Alexander and Rufus). And in the middle we have Jesus holding a discussion about the difference between real and spiritual parents and siblings. But this belongs to another discussion that has more to do with literary structures and will have to wait another time or webpage.) — or maybe i can just note this in the meantime:

James and John, sons of Zebedee (2 sons of the one)

Levi, son of Alphaeus (1 son of the one)

Simon, son of Alphaeus (1 other son of the same? one)

Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus (2 sons of the one)

Mary, mother of Joses (1 son of the one)

Mary, mother of James (1 other son of the same one)

and pointed it out again at around the same time at Mark's flags for interpreting Mark?

Screen Shot 2022-04-06 at 8.40.49 am.png (60.41 KiB) Viewed 1378 times

Alexander and Rufus are most clearly part of a Markan literary structure and it doesn't take a huge amount of reflection to begin to see the implicit theological message.