Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote: (Not that I necessarily buy Fredricksen's explanation for the names of Jesus' brothers as "obvious" or "certain", by the way. I mention it because, well, Paula's not a fool and it's another perspective to be considered. She might be right, but I don't know. I don't believe Mark wrote about Jesus' family for any "historical preservation" reasons.

I think people like Fredricksen are confined by 'tunnel vision' around traditional thought/'scholarship'. I don't think she or many others have thought outside their comfort zone.

Okay, Peter, I have given what you wrote some (hopefully more cogent) thought, and this is what I have.

Peter Kirby wrote:I already anticipated this kind of reply, but I did not really expect anyone making it in full seriousness (perhaps you are not making it in full seriousness but merely suggesting that I have not anticipated it or reckoned it) after seeing even just the few facts I mentioned.

I am thinking the facts you mentioned are these, but I cannot be absolutely certain since this thread has been sprawling out so quickly:

On the contrary, however, I say that the reference to Simon the Cyrenian (almost) must be positive because of its close correspondence to this statement made by Jesus about those who want to be his followers:

Mark 8:34
He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

Mark 15:21
And they compelled a passerby, Simon Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross.

I don't make much of the difference supposed to be found here between 'take up' and 'compelled', because the parallel is actually between 'take up' (ἀράτω [from αἴρω]) and 'to carry' (ἄρῃ [from αἴρω]) the 'cross' (σταυρὸν), and the correspondence is thus very close to the point of undeniability.

I guess I am wondering what warrants such certainty that the connection (almost) must be positive when the initial condition is not fulfilled. The saying starts with if any want, the very definition of voluntary action, while the pericope on Simon starts with and they compelled, the very definition of involuntary action. The very basis of the comparison being opposite, I would think that the correspondence is, if anything, negative. It feels like I have said something like this before on this thread, but I am not sure how else to respond to a part of the argument that I have read several times, that I think I understand adequately, but that I simply disagree with.

When I wrote something like this before, something about the opposition, you replied:

But what conclusion do we draw from this? (And is this apparently opposite concept the central concept, 'the concept', here, in the context of the parallel between the saying earlier and the narrative later? Assuming that would be, practically speaking, to assume what needs to be proven.)

I think I am reading the opposition between the two pericopae out of the text itself, and not assuming anything that I am trying to prove, any more than it seems you are, for could I not turn your statement around? And is this apparent word link concerning the picking up of the cross the central concept here, in the context of the parallel between the saying earlier and the narrative later? How does granting the bare word link mean that the author (almost) cannot be negating it? I hate to bring Matthew into it, but it is only for the sake of analogy, I promise. In Matthew 7.22 casting out demons in the name of the Lord is exactly what a good disciple might do (verbal links to Matthew 10.8, for example), but the concept is explicitly turned negative by the context; there is something more important than casting out demons in being a disciple. Likewise, it seems to me that the context, which is free will versus coercion, makes this picking up of the cross at least not a positive thing, and maybe even a negative thing. Joe says that Simon Cyrenian is physically taking up and carrying the cross but he is not doing it spiritually. At least for now, I think Joe is correct here, and I do not hear myself saying that very often. So I trust you can believe that I am not just trying to be difficult or cantankerous.

The conclusion that I draw from this is that it makes more sense in the context of the narrative (of the Roman crucifixion, should we imagine that volunteers could dictate who carries anything?) to say it one way and that it makes more sense in the context of the saying (earlier) to say it another way, in a more general and noble fashion.

But if this is all Marcan artifice anyway, and he is freely linking the saying with the later narrative, why not go ahead and make Simon volunteer to carry the cross? Or at the very least, if you feel that would not work for some reason, why emphasize the element of compulsion? Why not just say that the soldiers found someone to carry the cross for Jesus, sliding right by the explicit element of compulsion? (And, if Mark is not composing freely, if he is bound in some way by events or by the tradition that he has received, then we can simply say that the tension is a result of idealizing discipleship as taking up the cross but being stuck with the reality or tradition that Simon was forced to carry it.)

(Moreover, since when do random passersby get pressed into carrying the crossbeam for someone else? This is an important point, if someone were to develop it, that should be relevant to the overall purpose of determining whether this story were historical or not. And if it were not historical, then that has knock-on effects for the reading of the Gospel of Mark here.)

If you do not like my suggestion above about Simon volunteering to take up the cross (perhaps when Jesus stumbles or some such; I can see the passion play in my mind), then I suggest that we treat it like this parenthetical remark of yours treats the actual text at hand. If we are willing to countenance that random passersby getting pressed into such service might be unrealistic, and that might be a point to consider when evaluating what Mark was doing here, then, if Simon volunteering to carry the cross be considered unrealistic, consider that a point to consider in exactly the same way.

That is all I have for now, I think.

Ben.

Random thought. What if Simon carrying the cross is not the focus of the narrative at all here? What if the focus is Jesus carrying his own cross only halfway, and Simon is there simply because the cross had to get to Golgotha somehow, and the soldiers certainly were not going to carry it? This probably runs afoul of mentioning Alexander and Rufus, though. And the meaning of Jesus not being able to carry his own cross all the way is not immediately clear to me, though of course the overall sense of desolation, difficulty, and distress throughout the crucifixion would probably have something to do with it. Just scattershooting here.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Likewise, it seems to me that the context, which is free will versus coercion, makes this picking up of the cross at least not a positive thing, and maybe even a negative thing. Joe says that Simon Cyrenian is physically taking up and carrying the cross but he is not doing it spiritually. At least for now, I think Joe is correct here, and I do not hear myself saying that very often. So I trust you can believe that I am not just trying to be difficult or cantankerous.

JW:
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.

Mark 14

37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?

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.

So "Mark" has the offending instruction regarding "carrying the cross and following Jesus" directed to Peter, his Jesus subsequently reverts this Peter's name to Simon and than a different Simon carries the cross and follows Jesus. Jesus Peter, what are the odds? About as good as me being able to add that "Jesus Peter" in perfect context.

Bonus material for Solo = Notice the added connection of Peter/Satan being commanded to figuratively get behind Jesus just as Simon will literally be behind Jesus. Also the temporal contrast of spiritually meaning those coming after Jesus' supposed time verses those physically coming after Jesus in Jesus' time. Now for Christ's sake can someone please explain to me why anyone thinks that someone who can write this well was likely anything other than a Master author trained in Rome?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Has anyone enumerated some of the hypotheses that have been proposed? I have offered three, and there is also Carrier's stillborn attempt, but before we spend several more pages debating impressions and assumptions formed in the abstract, we could have several different particular ideas to consider and weigh as possible options.

I'd like to hear some of the possibilities that Joe, Neil, and Ben have considered as options that present themselves. I suggest that a consideration of particular interpretations can both be productive as a way to discover more facets of the subject and could perhaps aid our judicious evaluation of all the general questions that we have been asking so far and, finally, could help us stumble along better towards an understanding of the text.

Peter Kirby wrote:(Particularly since I have not only stated that our ignorance may merely be our ignorance but also because I do not think we're wholly ignorant, due to some indications in the text, i.e. the word 'Arimathea' and especially that he was 'himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate' for Joseph and especially the earlier saying on taking up the cross and following for Simon; moreover, the naked acts of helping Jesus bear the cross and helping him to be buried are inherently sympathetic acts, not inherently negative or faithless acts, and these are the defining characteristics of these characters of the story, who are introduced expressly to fulfill these functions. But, naturally, if we're claiming the opposite in any inquiry, such as that Simon the Cyrenian and Joseph of Arimathea play negative and faithless roles, then it is upon the opposite for that claim to be shown; it is not going to be shown by criticizing the arguments purported to show the claim to be wrong, which is why I've broken this off into its own post.)

(just as a side note

It's good, that you remembered that, Peter. I was thinking about that a few days ago when I read the story about the empty tomb again. To me this is actually a story about a lucky escape, with women that are the dupes, made up with a really black humor. But besides, whether I'm right or wrong, this impression is the result of reading the story again and again and reflections about many details.

For a reader who reads the story the first, the second or the third time it is impossible to get this impression. To this reader the women are clearly positive characters of the story. We should never forget that in a discussion.)

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:(just as a side note

It's good, that you remembered that, Peter. I was thinking about that a few days ago when I read the story about the empty tomb again. To me this is actually a story about a lucky escape, with women that are the dupes, made up with a really black humor. But besides, whether I'm right or wrong, this impression is the result of reading the story again and again and reflections about many details.

For a reader who reads the story the first, the second or the third time it is impossible to get this impression. To this reader the women are clearly positive characters of the story. We should never forget that in a discussion.)

As a side note to a side note, I do believe that it is likely that Joe Wallack, Neil Godfrey, Ben Smith, and you yourself have read the Gospel of Mark more times than I have. I'd venture anywhere from several more times to even more than that for each individually. Usually it would be assumed to be a weakness not to work with a text closely and over many readings when interpreting it, but it doesn't have to be. Fundamentally it's just a different perspective and perhaps occasionally a perspective that could throw up insights that are likely to be lost when reading it over and over with an eye to the fine details. (Just saying this, in passing, given the other comments that have been made in a general way. Some people here appear to have very seriously wrestled with the Gospel of Mark, while at least in the last couple years [not always] I've paid relatively little attention to Gospel studies because the arguments generally appear to be infuriatingly controvertible and also extraordinarily complicated, due to and starting from the very problem of the actual Gospel texts and relationships among texts.)

Peter Kirby wrote:Some people here appear to have very seriously wrestled with the Gospel of Mark, while at least in the last couple years [not always] I've paid relatively little attention to Gospel studies because the arguments generally appear to be infuriatingly controvertible and also extraordinarily complicated, due to and starting from the very problem of the actual Gospel texts and relationships among texts.)

I can only imagine how many hypotheses would topple if, for some reason, we found out that gMark, or at least some of the key wordings many interpretations are hinged on, is not earlier than the other gospels but also derived from some even earlier text that is the basis for all gospels.

JoeWallack wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:What is the force of supposed followers here? If the transfiguration scene in Mark 9 is the dividing line, then why are the sons of Zebedee still identified in the traditional way in Mark 10.35? Are you saying that James and John are not supposed followers? Or what exactly?

James and John are old Testament school, they've already been presented. Still presented as sons of a father and not fathers of anyone. I guess they didn't bear any fruit. Go fig yer tree.

Here is a list of verses in which people are identified in Mark by their familial relationships; I am hoping this is exhaustive, except that I have omitted son of David, son of God, and other messianic or similar titles (if I need to include them on the list for some reason, and not just use them as guides to interpretation as you have been using them so far, please let me know). I have placed the transfiguration at the appropriate spot:


Since on your view Mark 10.35 does not count, since James and John have already been identified previously, I will remove all repeat identifications:


Now, your original point was that the pattern really applied only to supposed followers of Jesus. That certainly eliminates Herodias, but beyond that you may have to fill me in on how you are thinking about this. Mary I can definitely see as a supposed follower. Simon Cyrenian though? Even if you think so in some strained sense, it is certainly not in the same way as Mary; he certainly lacks something in this area that Mary has. He even lacks something that Bartimaeus has: faith, though I think it can be agreed that Bartimaeus is not presented as a follower; he is represented as coming to Jesus (not following him), just like the multitudes and the recipients of healings. Provisionally, I will take Bartimaeus out and leave Simon in, though I do hope you will explain why Simon deserves to stay when he lacks even the barest inclination to follow Jesus (unlike Mary, who is specifically listed as a follower):


That, I think, is the result you are hoping for, right? Four instances of traditional identifications before the transfiguration and two nontraditional ones after it. I guess I am just not sure there is enough to really suspect a pattern. I mean, maybe if the author were more explicit about it. Call me a doubter or what have you, and I promise I will consider it, but right now it just does not look like much to work with, not even counting the issue of whether Simon should really be there.

Note that in the Teaching Ministry Jesus also kind of makes a big deal about literal verses figurative families.

Noted.

Think Paul.

Thought.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Figuratively it's more likely you are a son of God and a father of sons according to:

"as ye know how we [dealt with] each one of you, as a father with his own children, exhorting you, and encouraging [you], and testifying,"

the one who only preached him crucified.

Again, it comes down to a connection that I am not sure I can make as much of as you do. Because Paul compared himself to a parent and his followers to children, therefore identifying a person in a nontraditional way, by his or her children, is supposed to be a callback to Paul? Who would get that? Is it a private in-joke between Mark, you, and the holy dove? Maybe it is obvious, and I just do not have ears to hear. But it just seems so tenuous a link.

Also, as I've mentioned before (to you), all the supposed names of Jesus' family:

Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?

are mentioned prominently in the Passion (I especially like Peter being reverted back to "Simon") and the author even seems to be trying to avoid naming other characters in the Passion, "the woman" who will never be forgotten, a certain young man, the high priest, a maid of the high priest, the centurion and a young man.

That is something to think about. I will consider it.

The other few names invoked, Pilate, Alexander and Rufus I can find in Paul/Fake Paul, except for BarAbbas (I would guess you accept that "BarAbbas" looks contrived).

I have studied the whole Barabbas thing extremely little; but yes, at this stage it looks contrived.

...it looks to me that in general "Mark" (author) has intentionally not named those who per narrative had a positive response to Jesus. This would seem to go against PK's suggestion that Alexander and Rufus are invoked by name because they were known to "Mark's" audience as in general "Mark" gives names to those who test (so to speak) negative to Jesus and withholds names for those who test positive for Jesus.

I feel another list coming on.... Maybe sometime.

And now a question for you Ben. Do you accept that "Mark" had a primary theme of discrediting the supposed disciples as proper witnesses to Jesus?

I do think that Mark makes an effort to paint the disciples as dunderheads and as faithless to some extent (here much depends on how we interpret the promised appearance to Peter in 14.28, and that brings up the whole deal about the Marcan ending; but I am more than willing to stipulate, at least for the sake of argument, that even the promised appearance was going to be a negative experience for Peter, and not a reconciliation; that is a very possible view). I am not sure exactly how primary it is for his purpose, but I would not at all want to leave it out of consideration.

Ben.

And now a question for you Ben. Do you accept that "Mark" had a primary theme of discrediting the supposed disciples as proper witnesses to Jesus?

The disciples were not proper witnesses of Jesus for a simple reason:
The disciples were not witnesses of the GOSPEL Jesus, but of a not divine, not extraordinary rural Jew, credited, by some flukes, to be a healer and talking about John the Baptist's Kingdom of God at hand:
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

After reading all the comments on the topic, I think the odds of Mk 15:21 indicating Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem are at least 3 to 1, despite the attempts of injecting doubts.
Mind you, Simon of Cyrene might have been lying to his sons, or his sons lying about their father (deceased by then) telling them the story, but that shows a knowledge of the Crucifixion on earth happening in the near past, and before gMark was written. In other words, gMark did not invent the Crucifixion and a Jesus on earth.
I think Simon of C being forced rather than volunteering, Simon of C not said to be a follower of Jesus, "Mark" naming two of his sons, Jesus having some relief from his sufferance (by not carrying the cross), are positive points in favor of authenticity (whole or partial).
Then, of course, this does not go against the evidence in the Pauline epistles and 'Hebrews' about Jesus being human on earth in the near past and crucified:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
http://historical-jesus.info/40.html

Cordially, Bernard