In the search for more theories on Simon Cyrenian, I have turned to
Michael Turton. Here I list the theories offered in his
Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.
1. A touch of realism (whether fictional or historical).
Brown (1994, p913-916) reviews some of the points. Simon is absent from the Gospel of Peter and from the Gospel of John. Roman practice, as described by ancient sources, was to force the prisoner to carry his own cross. Further, the writer presents Simon as "compelled" but it is unlikely, given Roman policy for respecting local law, that the Roman soldiers would have forced a Jew to work on a major holiday like Passover. Yet we are never told Simon was Jew. Simon is a Greek name, along with Alexander, while Rufus is a Roman one. Nor would the soldiers have ordered Simon to help out of pity, since they had just abused and mocked Jesus. Brown's position is that perhaps Simon was ordered to help because Jesus was so weak the soldiers feared he might die before he arrived at the execution site. This position is viable whether one views the narrative as history or fiction.
2. A double of Simon Magus.
Price (2003, 319-20), argues that Simon of Cyrene is a double of Simon Magus, from the Philistine town of Gitta, who according to Epiphanius claimed to have undergone a passion as the Son of God. "Gitta" is easily confused with "Kittim," a term for Cyrene (Cyrenaica is in what is now Libya). Cyrene was a Gentile town, but a Jewish colony had been established there (Blount 1993, p179).
3. An ideal disciple.
Randel Helms (1988, p121-2) along with other scholars (Reinach, for example) has argued that Simon is the ideal apostle who is doing exactly what Jesus said a disciple must do in order to imitate him: take up his cross. Blount (1993) argues this same position from the point of view of rhetoric. "Simon is a sort of 'every-human' who participates in a discipleship centered on God's divine plan. Everyone cannot function as Jesus. Everyone can, however, function like Simon." Against this interpretation, however, it must be noted that Simon is compelled, and does not choose freely.
It would seem that some of echo Turton in our insistence on taking the compulsion seriously in our interpretations.
4. A double for Simon Peter.
Helms also observes that 8:34 follows on 8:33, in which Jesus famously calls Simon Peter "Satan." Donald Senior (1987,p116) points out that the phrase "take up the cross" is the same in both passages. Is Simon of Cyrene a double for Simon Peter? Jesus says that whoever would follow him must first deny himself; Peter instead denies Jesus. Has the writer of Mark piled up irony here, showing a Simon denying himself to take up his cross, even as another Simon denies Jesus? Has he injected a historical figure into the passage? Or did these events occur as written? There's no way to know. One connection between 8:34 and 15:21 is that the mention of "cross" in 15:21 is the first time in the Gospel since 8:34. Jesus has managed to make 3 Passion predictions without mentioning the term even once.
This is pretty close to what I suggested earlier today, and note the use of the term
irony. Exactly so.
5. A naming of anonymous characters from the source material.
Another way to look at the names mentioned in 15:21 is to remind oneself that as tradition develops, names are generally given to unnamed characters. Thus the high priest's servant who loses an ear in Gethsemane is unnamed in Mark, but in John becomes Malchus. Similarly, the unnamed bandits crucified with Jesus are given a variety of names in later Christian literature. If Mark is working off a source, perhaps he is merely giving a name to a character that has no name in his source.
6. A symbolic sacrificial officiant.
T.E. Schmidt (1995) argues that Simon represents the person who accompanied the sacrificial bull in the processions, carrying an enormous double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim's death.
7. A novelistic character of no importance.
Mary Ann Tolbert (1989), observing Mark's many affinities with ancient popular literature, writes: "With the exception of the hero and heroine and perhaps a couple of faithful servants (Xenophon) or a faithful friend (Chariton), all of the other characters in the ancient novels are minor and appear for an episode or two and then disappear." (p76) Simon of Cyrene may be, in the final analysis, simply one more minor figure whose job is to move the process along.
None of these ideas seems to deal with Alexander and Rufus, however.
Ben.
