Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Peter Kirby]

I have given a 'thoroughgoing symbolic' interpretation of this passage a go:

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1498

It was easier than I thought it would be, I have to admit, once I got rolling here. And it seems to make plenty of contextual sense (which is its strength really--the literalistic interpretations take the phrase in isolation, not in the context of already established narrative motifs), at least for anyone able to be completely sympathetic to the "prophecy historicized" notion for describing the passion stories in the Gospels in general.

We should be careful of assumptions, as always.

[andrewcriddle]

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? . . .

T. E. Schmidt listed many details of the Roman Triumph that opened up the possibility (even likelihood) that Mark was composing Jesus' crucifixion as a reverse Roman Triumph. One little detail not included by Schmidt is the description of Simon of Cyrene coming in out of the countryside. A third century c.e. Roman novel by Heliodorus describes a procession led (like the Triumph, iirc) with the sacrificial animals. Accompanying these animals were the men who were to carry out the slaughter carrying the instruments of sacrificial execution (a double-headed axe that quite irrelevantly I am sure looked something like a cross).

And like Simon of Cyrene these men came in from the countryside.

At the head of the procession came the sacrificial animals, led on the halter by the men who were to perform the holy rites, countryfolk, in country costume.. Each wore a white tunic, caught up to knee length by a belt. Their right arms were bare to the shoulder and breast, and in their right hands they each brandished a double-headed ax. From Book 3, Ethiopian Story.

I presume country-folk were chosen because they were the ones experienced in leading and butchering the large animals. (Maybe Alexander and Rufus were local butchers being given a free plug by Mark.)

Obviously one balks at the idea of using a third century source here but I might suggest that what we are reading is a description of a custom that surely had very aged roots.

If this information is relevant might it not support the interpretation of a negative role for Simon of Cyrene -- that he is participating in the execution of Jesus rather than "carrying his own cross"?

(But then I am still faced with the possibility of another Markan irony/ambiguity.)

Incidentally, I question whether we should ever think that Mark was constrained by tradition or the material at hand or the 'facts' as he knew them. If we know anything about ancient "historical" literature and the gospels themselves it is that their authors were quite prepared to change, drop and introduce details as served their instructional purposes.

FWIW Heliodorus probably lived in the 4th century CE and may have been a Christian bishop.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

J. R. Morgan, the translator of my edition of the Ethiopian Story, "inclines" to date it to the fourth century because of "similarities between the siege of Syene in the ninth book [of Aithiopika] and the siege of Nisibius by the Parthians in A.D. 350, but others would like to put it a hundred years earlier." (p. 352 of Reardon's "Collected Ancient Greek Novels").

Morgan also thanks the late stories of Heliodorus's apparent conversion to Christianity [as you indicate we simply don't know if they were true or not] for being the reason the novella was preserved at all.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Certainty is hard to warrant. I think what I was saying here was more that a connection is certain. Perhaps this also means, prima facie, that the connection is so-called "positive" (or neutral) until it can be shown that it is meant to be inverted, because a connection is a connection, based on an actual similarity (which is "positive," the presence of a similarity, not the absence of one), while an inversion is a deliberately inverted connection, which requires at least some kind of indication to believe that it is there.

I also think that a possible explanation for why we should see an inversion here has been presented, so it might be said to be ambiguous, in the context of what has been said here in the abstract. A lot of what seems to have happened in this thread involves people reacting to supposed certainty that they see as unwarranted. Perhaps part of the problem is the failure to carve out any room for uncertainty. It is also strange to revisit this thread in its grand abstract view of it all, but I felt that I owed you some kind of response for your efforts. And I also wanted to reiterate something that started to be mentioned in this thread and in the other one (below), which can shed some light on what was written immediately above and how it ain't necessarily so.

I think I am reading the opposition between the two pericopes 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?

Yes, but that was more or less my point. Selecting a single perceived correspondence or lack of correspondence as the 'trumping' key to interpretation is indeed something that is all too easily turned on its head. On the other hand, I might still say something like above about a correspondence being inherently 'positive' in nature, drawing attention to a similarity (and the question is only the existence of attention being drawn by the author to the similarity), and thus the question of the 'importance' of the differences becomes much more acute for those finding antitypes. It's a simpler business finding things that are in enough respects alike; to show that they are in some way, you must show that they are not alike in a key point, which the author wished to draw the reader's attention towards, mere differences being either salient or not salient. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with that point of view, perhaps, but it seems like it may be a useful way to frame such a discussion.

(Or maybe it's just another cause for fruitless wrangling, in which case, see my better comments below.)

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.

I agree that you aren't 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?

I concede this argument.

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.

I concede this argument.

Unfortunately (because they were not in the post that is expertly dissected above), some better comments were produced later in the jumbled thread, along with some lately in the new thread.

Here are some, examining how we have been reading the saying in question:

Finally, we've been discussing the saying in the Gospel of Mark in a very abstract way, which is also odd, because it is a very specific saying that has one very clear and most immediate reference for the audience.

And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it."

This is talking about people who were killed for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of Christ, something already attested as early as Pliny the Younger (ca. 112 CE). The contrast is between "wishing to save his life" (avoiding being convicted of the name of Christian, by denying Christ, something also attested in Pliny's letter) and thus losing it (in the spiritual sense), or instead "losing his life for my sake" (accepting the accusation of being a Christian) and thus saving it (in the spiritual sense). By acknowledging Jesus and accepting the charges of following Christ, one in that manner denies himself and follows after him and 'takes up a cross'.

The interpretation of an antitypal Simon rests on a shallow or incorrect understanding of the saying. When we quote the full context and understanding of the saying, the true correspondence between the character Simon and this saying is actually improved. When they "pressed into service" Simon, that is parallel to the average person being dragged before magistrates and asked whether they will accept the charge of being called a Christian. If you accept the charge imposed on you (by the Romans), you would then be taking up a cross, following Jesus, denying yourself, losing your life, and saving yourself in the process. While the elliptical reference to Simon doesn't have all of that (only later traditions would say that Simon lost his life), and I'm not assuming that the character did more than carry the crossbeam when being forced to do so (imposed on him), it is in accepting the imposition that he is like the ideal follower in the saying. (Also, of course, he literally takes up a cross. So there's that too.)

And here are some, briefly, on how we've been reading the Simon passage:

Jesus gives his saying about taking up a cross right after rebuking (Simon) Peter.

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? 37 For what can a man give in return for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

As such, I would be most inclined to read the name "Simon" here as either a comparison or a contrast with (Simon) Peter (and, seemingly, a contrast).

For example, this Simon could be the one who would lose his life for the sake of Jesus and could be one who accepts the idea that the "Son of Man must suffer ... and be killed." I know that this ties into the earlier discussion, but the fact is that Mark 15:20b-22 says absolutely nothing about the subjective state of mind of the Simon mentioned here. It mentions only the action performed by 'they' who impressed upon him. To read into this story that Simon was unwilling (or willing) is to go beyond the text. Of course, "Simon" might be neither in particular in the mind of the author, given that he may just be a cipher for a sacrifice that had to be made along with the burning of the spotless red heifer. But, in any case, his taking up of a cross and support given on behalf of Jesus on the way of Jesus to being killed could be setting up a favorable contrast with (Simon) Peter, the one who specifically rebuked Jesus on these very points, and to whom Jesus utters the rebuke and saying back in return that followers must deny themselves and bear crosses.

As stated before, of course, all of this is tangential. If someone can pull together a complete interpretation including the name of Simon that makes more sense (not merely repeating the oft-repeated and apparently well-beloved claim that Simon must be regarded as an antitype, and not simply a type, of the saying), that would be wonderful too. If anyone can, go for it.

That last bit is important enough to quote again here, I think. No one particular detail (or lack of detail) can be focused on exclusively and thus argued to be the key to interpretation. An approach to interpretation has to provide a detailed and holistic view, defending a particular reading of the passage and all of its details, if it is to provide justification for an interpretation, because the analysis of isolated abstract ideas is not an interpretation but only scribbling on the way towards an interpretation.

But let's just get down to the point here. The verse of Mark 15:21 has the verb 'impressed' here, describing what is done to Simon. The verse of Mark 9:31 has 'If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself...' This can be suggested to be read the way several in this thread have suggested, as lining up and inviting a contrast. However, I have suggested that there is a quite reasonable reading in which they do not line up and invite contrast (in the comments above), which I will now illustrate here.

Mark 9:34-38	Mark 15:21
Statements about State of Mind 'If anyone would', 'deny himself', 'ashamed of me'	--(nada)--
Context of Force by the State (Martyrdom) 'whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it' (reference to actual death and threat of death, which is imposed, not just symbolic of generalized suffering)	'Impressed' a certain Simon (context of the force of the state)
Accepting the Consequence of the Force of the State (Without Denying Jesus) 'carry his cross and follow me'	Accepting the Consequence of the Force of the State 'to carry the cross'

Nothing is said about the state of mind of Simon here, while that is indeed mentioned in the earlier saying passage. Both passage appear to involve the threat of force to the state and submitted to said force while not abandoning Jesus. Instead of seeing a contrast (by lining it up differently), one can see here two parallels drawn and a third element of the saying left without parallel. That isn't exactly enough material to claim the particular conclusion that 'Simon' is to be viewed as a failed example of the saying or its antitype or some such, although it is perhaps enough to invite our wondering.

I'm not sure why there is nothing said about the state of mind of Simon, about his subjective response of willingness or lack of willingness, esteem for Jesus or lack of it, faith or lack of it. There truly is nothing said. One possibility, in line with the other thread, is that nothing is said because 'Simon' here is a cipher for some inert bit of scriptural precedent, which did not suggest to the author anything more than a brief mention so that all may be fulfilled. A second possibility is that the author intends the figure of Simon here (as indeed the earlier reference in Numbers 19) to stand in a general way for the believer, who may be called upon to sacrifice themselves just like Jesus is sacrificed, thus taking up a cross just like Jesus, their sacrifice, did. The second possibility seems especially interesting in that it creates an additional similiarity in the context of reading the passage in the light of the saying, which seems to be admitted in any case, because the saying itself refers to the believer in a general way. it seems fitting, then, that the saying's corresponding figure in the passion narrative might be mentioned in a similar manner, in a general way. The lack of an explicitly mentioned reaction for Jesus could be said to invite the reader to supply one, if it is being read in a generalized fashion, which would only be achieved by reading the saying into the narrative, shining another light on it and showing that the Numbers 19 passage presages the sacrifice of the followers of Jesus along with Jesus himself.

These finer points of interpretation, of course, are impossible to settle with certainty, and are made even more difficult when considered purely in the abstract based on only a few select details extracted from the narrative. The only thing that I can really show here is that those few details can be arranged in another fashion.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

Certainty is hard to warrant. I think what I was saying here was more that a connection is certain. Perhaps this also means, prima facie, that the connection is so-called "positive" (or neutral) until it can be shown that it is meant to be inverted, because a connection is a connection, based on an actual similarity (which is "positive," the presence of a similarity, not the absence of one), while an inversion is a deliberately inverted connection, which requires at least some kind of indication to believe that it is there.

I've been trying to understand why Mark might have made a point of Simon of C being forced to carry the cross.

Writers don't pen words without reason. So when Mark says there were two thieves being crucified with Jesus he adds "the one on his right hand, and the other on his left" -- a distinct reminder of the request of James and John to be placed on the right and left of Jesus.

Obviously the "thieves" had no wish to be placed there, however -- unlike J and J. And of course J and J imaged something quite different in their request.

But if we think of the whole scenario as being an inverted triumph or ironic glorification, then we are reminded that Jesus himself said he would be delivered to the gentiles and be subjected to their cruel whims.

Entering the glory of the kingdom means being subjected to where we have no wish to go. Recall Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. Jesus is compelled but he also voluntarily entered into that situation. (Or did he? Didn't the spirit at baptism compel him to follow the path he took? -- discussion below)

Symbolically the thieves and bypassers were entering the kingdom before those who had been called. Didn't Matthew make this explicit in one of his parables? (Maybe here was one of the few places Matthew agreed with Mark but not with the cryptic way he expressed it.)

But how can compulsion be equated with what is required for salvation? That was the question that led to the above interpretation.

Recall the baptism of Jesus. Jesus compares baptism to crucifixion later in the gospel. But at the baptism Jesus is possessed by the spirit and cast out into the wilderness. No personal voluntary act here.

Then when Jesus is "passing by" (we've encountered that motif before) he called Simon and Andrew and later Levi. Then the strangest thing happened. Simon and the others simply up and followed -- as if the call compelled them.

What does Paul have to say about the call and sufferings of the Christian? Any clues there?

Once again, as so often through Mark, I think we may be justified in seeing another instance of the beginning being set up to interpret the ending.

As Peter has said, Mark appears to be writing a parable, a series of hidden mysteries only for those called to decipher.

Maybe Mark's God is calling me?

[Ben C. Smith]

As stated before, of course, all of this is tangential. If someone can pull together a complete interpretation including the name of Simon that makes more sense (not merely repeating the oft-repeated and apparently well-beloved claim that Simon must be regarded as an antitype, and not simply a type, of the saying), that would be wonderful too. If anyone can, go for it.

Thanks for the detailed response, Peter.

What if Simon Cyrenian is supposed to hearken back to Simon Peter, but neither in a negative nor in a positive way? Rather, in a way that has nothing really to do with Simon Cyrenian himself?

I guess when I hear the term positive in these contexts, I start thinking that Simon is supposed to be some kind of role model here, and I do not see that in the text. Likewise, when I hear the term negative, I start thinking that Simon did something wrong, so to speak. Maybe that is not how those using these terms are intending to use them, but I think such terms are putting fetters on my brain, preventing me from thinking certain thoughts. So I have for a while tried to see if I can read this verse as having everything to do with Jesus, and nothing to do with Simon Cyrenian. For example, perhaps Mark wanted to emphasize how much Jesus suffered; it was so difficult that he could not carry his own cross all the way; even he needed help, despite his earlier saying about taking up the cross. On this reading, the link between those passages is preserved pristine, and Simon is there simply because somebody had to get the cross the rest of the way to Golgotha, and the Roman soldiers were certainly not going to do it. Of course, this reading also fails to explain Alexander and Rufus (Cyrene I could read as simply an identifier of no consequence; named people usually get them, so Mark gave him one, and if there is any meaning to it, then it is how very insignificant the place of origin is; so insignificant it could even be some farflung port of call like Cyrene...; I hope that makes sense).

But I admit that explanation did not charm me much. This present one sounds better to me, but it is very fresh (and fresh ideas sometimes lose their savor with me as I consider them), so I am throwing this bone out there just to see if somebody can make a broth of it.

Basically, it is all about Simon Peter. Peter should have been there, alongside his Lord, instead of thrice denying him and running away from hardship. If Jesus could not bear the cross the whole way, then it should have been Peter, fulfilling the saying as instructed. As things happened, it was a Simon who bore the cross all right, but not Simon Peter; instead, it was just some random passerby whose point of origin could be anywhere (even some farflung port of call like Cyrene). On this reading, Simon Cyrenian bearing the cross is neither positive nor negative, to pick up the old lingo. Simon Peter not bearing it, however, is negative; he should have been the one. (I think I sound a little bit like Joe Wallack here, and it would not altogether surprise me if this reading is similar to or part of his own reading of it; I do not always pick up on what he is trying to say.)

ETA:

I've been trying to understand why Mark might have made a point of Simon of C being forced to carry the cross.

On this reading, Simon Peter did not do so voluntarily, so Simon Cyrenian had to be forced to do it.

Of course, this still leaves Alexander and Rufus utterly unexplained. But it was a thought I had after reading your response, Peter (for which, again, thanks).

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

this still leaves Alexander and Rufus utterly unexplained

An attempt to distinguish two Simons (falsely) when there was only one.

[Ben C. Smith]

this still leaves Alexander and Rufus utterly unexplained

An attempt to distinguish two Simons (falsely) when there was only one.

Why does Cyrenian not already do that?

Ben.

[neilgodfrey]

I'm not sure we should be looking for narrative-plausible explanations. Narrative plots and details require realism, characters acting with proper human motivations and being guided by clear purposes of plots with some verisimilitude.

I don't see much of any of this in the Gospel of Mark. I don't know that we have much reason to seek to explain Simon of C in these terms.

e.g. Simon of C is not actually taking up "his" cross at all so it's hard to seamlessly align this with the message that we have to take up our crosses to follow Jesus. Mark is too much into parable, hidden meanings, for that.

[Secret Alias]

I've already said that I think 'passerby' is a deliberate corruption of עברי (so he was originally identified as a 'Hebrew' rather than a passerby). So in the original text he's just 'Simon a Hebrew.' Why Cyrene? The editor of Acts has a pronounced interest in Cyrene for some reason also.