Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:21 pm I don't know.

There are approximately 500 men in a Roman cohort, one of them is later quoted as describing Jesus as a divine son. At least one member of the Sanhedrin is later described as seeking the kingdom of God.

That's a reasonable answer.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:21 pmIn the meantime, you asked the community which you lead a question. You have received one member's answer to the question you asked.

And, so, ...? I should not ask another question?

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:21 pmYou're welcome.

This is unnecessary.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:24 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:45 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:15 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:17 am Why does Mark call Simon of Cyrene the father of Alexander and Rufus?

I am partial to the claim that this was meant to be an allegory for Christianity's passing to the gentiles, so by giving the role of cross-carrier to a man from a Greek city who had children with non-Jewish names even as he had a Hellenized Greek name, this was achieved. But if we have any traditions about Alexander and Rufus as Christians, then that would be interesting and would counter this theory.

Why would Christianity pass to the gentiles through an "Alien God" "Simon" instead of through the "Superior Christ"? Isn't an implication of what you're saying here simply that the Gentiles are inferior and children of the inferior, earthly Christ?

With all due respect

I mistook your post for one from Giuseppe (it answered a question I had asked of his OP). Sorry.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:24 pm, though, Simon of Cyrene in GMark is not presented as anything other than a human - although this may indeed also be a subtle condemnation of the Simon who claimed to have been divine, in which case Simon's role as a person who only intervenes when called upon to by others and who had no previous role in Jesus's ministry may further that condemnation by implying that Simon who claimed to be divine missed Jesus's teachings (and added his own).

Are these different allegorical interpretations of Simon of Cyrene impossible to co-exist in the same narrative? Perhaps. But assigning to one figure different allegorical roles is possible.

By "missed Jesus's teachings (and added his own)," from the context I guess you're referring to a mission to Gentiles?

By "Simon who claimed to be divine," are you identifying Simon of Cyrene with the Simon in Acts 8 or later tradition?

That's a reasonable answer.

Thank you.

And, so, ...? I should not ask another question?

I didn't say that. And I answered the other question or two which you asked.

This is unnecessary.

Fair enough.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:20 pm By "missed Jesus's teachings (and added his own)," from the context I guess you're referring to a mission to Gentiles?

I was referring to Simonian Gnosticism, actually.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:20 pm By "Simon who claimed to be divine," are you identifying Simon of Cyrene with the Simon in Acts 8 or later tradition?

The Simon of later tradition, whom Simon in Acts 8 I believe more definitively to be a criticism - unlike Simon of Cyrene whom I was making a mere suggestion about being the Simon of later tradition based upon your comment.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:17 am Why does Mark call Simon of Cyrene the father of Alexander and Rufus?

because they are allegory of gentiles, correct. Going to memory, "Alexandros" in Greek means a physical defect in the foot (or something related to foot), which is a trait of Jacob. Rufus is Esauh.
Your interpretation works, since Mark is attacking the Basilidian belief that the Alien God appeared as Simon Magus to help Jesus. His gentile sons can confirm you that it was not Simon (=the Alien God) on the celestial cross, but his Divine Son.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:09 pm Mark is attacking the Basilidian belief that the Alien God appeared as Simon Magus to help Jesus. His gentile sons can confirm you that it was not Simon (=the Alien God) on the celestial cross, but his Divine Son.

Basilides is notorious for teaching that according to GMark Simon of Cyrene did end up on the cross. The claim that somebody taught this is credible because to this day, we can still see the chain of ambiguous pronoun references (especially the implicit ones expressed in the conjugation of verbs) that would support this teaching. Ambiguous or opaque pronoun reference is a recurring problem in GMark (e.g. that Jesus's family thought he was insane would be as solecist as Simon ending up on the cross, and maybe even more easily "defended" based on the literal text in hand).

We seem to agree that Simon's sons are positioned as potential witnesses (although I am less sure that they are presented as available to the actual reader-listener rather than to the narrator who exhibits familiarity with them by naming them). I don't see anything on the page that even suggests that they would testify differently from what Mark says happened. If the reader thinks Mark says that Simon was crucified, then that same reader could well think that Simon's sons would confirm that if asked (at the expense of their being unable to corroborate the narrator's a priori unlikely fact claims about how well Psalm 22 squared with the actual crucifxion - since their father wouldn't be able to tell them).

It is interesting that Simon Magus's perspective on Jesus is missing from GMark, especially if Mark believed Simon to have been a prominent contemporary and "near neighbor" of Jesus. (Although maybe as with Paul, Mark could have thought that Simon's first encounter with Christian ideas occurred after the time frame of Mark's story - still interesting perhaps.)

Regardless, Mark doesn't seem to me to "attack" the many interpretations of Jesus he presents. Even Antipas's "John the Baptist returned" idea is at worst the butt of a joke and even then well-motivated psychologically and at generous length. Ditto James's and John's fantasy about ending up on thrones - ludicrous, but not so different from the aspirations of many who volunteer to work on political campaigns IRL.

If your goal is to prove that Simon didn't end on the cross, then you invent the two sons of Simon who can confirm personally, since they are members of the church, that their father was not on the cross.

My point in this thread is that there is a difference between the cross that is carried by Simon and the cross on the Golgotha:

• the first cross is allegory of the earthly sufferings of the Son, who wears a habit of flesh (Simon);

• the second cross is allegory of the celestial cross in outer space, the cross of glory that is of cosmic sizes.

Et voilà: you have the reference to the crucifixion in outer space precisely in the Gospel story.

Which means that, even ignoring the Pauline epistles, a case can be made, based on the only gospel, that the original belief assumed a celestial crucifixion in outer space.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 5:16 am Which means that, even ignoring the Pauline epistles, a case can be made, based on the only gospel, that the original belief assumed a celestial crucifixion in outer space.

It's certainly never occurred to me, and it's still not evident enough that I would say "a case can be made, based on the only gospel..." Instead it appears to be only a somewhat-strained interpretation, rather than the grounds for such a case.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 6:01 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 5:16 am Which means that, even ignoring the Pauline epistles, a case can be made, based on the only gospel, that the original belief assumed a celestial crucifixion in outer space.

It's certainly never occurred to me, and it's still not evident enough that I would say "a case can be made, based on the only gospel..." Instead it appears to be only a somewhat-strained interpretation, rather than the grounds for such a case.

the apparent obstacle against the argument is the fact that Simon of Cyrene is seen as a mere man. The argument requires that Simon is a god masked under a mere human appearance.

Now, Alfaric and others have argued for Simon of Cyrene being really the god Esmun Krenaios, distorted in Kyrenaios.

In addition, we know that Simon Magus claimed to have posed as the Son in Judea, and as the Father in Samaria.


Note that the scholars who have compared the via crucis to the triumph of a Roman general have already realized that the culmination of the triumph is the cross on the Golgotha. Hence that the cross on the Golgotha is a cross of glory is already assumed by many.

What I am adding is that the cross that is carried is symbol of the earthly passion. The true earthly Passion, then, happens on the via crucis, not on the Golgotha.

The presence of two figures who carry the cross is allegory of the separationism.

As the argument goes, the presence of only a central figure on the Golgotha is allegory of the celestial crucifixion in outer space.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 5:16 am If your goal is to prove that Simon didn't end on the cross, then you invent the two sons of Simon who can confirm personally, since they are members of the church, that their father was not on the cross.

I assume by "your goal" you mean Mark's goal, the author's goal. If so, then no, there wouldn't be a Basilides problem in the first place if Mark had simply salted in even one more use of the proper name Jesus to break up the string of non-specific third-person references before which the last person to whom Mark refers by name is Simon.

As I noted in my previous post, Mark doesn't say what Alexander and Rufus would confirm if some (hypothetical?) contemporary of Mark had asked them (assuming Mark was an author who wrote sometime between 65 and 80 CE). That the narrator knows of them and of their relationship to a person who was (supposedly) at the scene doesn't correct the narrator's dodgy grammar.