Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[neilgodfrey]

Let me also mention that your own idea about plugging two local butcher buddies is one of those notions that fits in with my sense that the Marcan readers knew who these fellows were.

Ben.

The reasons I remain uneasy about this suggestion include my understanding that such a note is unprecedented in ancient literature, at least in literature of this (very broadly speaking) genre. There are other reasons, too, but some of them have already been raised to some extent in other comments.

I am also reminded of warnings against making too much of any passage in a text like this given that we have no way of being sure how much detail we have today was original to the gospel (did Matthew and Luke omit the names because they were not in their version of Mark?). I'd be interested to hear Roger's reasons for suspecting the names to be a redactional addition.

[Peter Kirby]

I am also reminded of warnings against making too much of any passage in a text like this given that we have no way of being sure how much detail we have today was original to the gospel (did Matthew and Luke omit the names because they were not in their version of Mark?). I'd be interested to hear Roger's reasons for suspecting the names to be a redactional addition.

The warning is sound--too much cannot be made of any one sentence, given that we don't have autographs, if we don't want a castle built on sand.

I don't believe it were an addition, but if it were an addition, we could start by going through the list of ideas that have been proposed under the hypothesis that it is authorial. Some of them would still be candidates.

I will mention here that I am surprised that the thread has gone this long without anyone pointing out that the literal interpretation most frequently suggested (that Alexander and Rufus were real people, known because they were still living and perhaps in Rome, and Simon were their father) essentially requires that the Gospel of Mark were written in the first century, and even 90 CE would be quite a stretch. (I suppose there's still the idea that Alexander and Rufus were famous dead people. We have just enough indications of the notoriety of some kind of "Rufus," given Romans 16 and/or Polycarp to the Philippians, but neither Rufus is grouped with an Alexander... does this perhaps count against the idea that there were a famous, deceased -pair- Alexander and Rufus? Note that 'Polycarp' lists his Rufus with some guy Zosimus and with Ignatius.)

So what I'm saying here, I guess, is that we do have a couple relevant arguments here (not that they are amazingly good, but then which of them are here), for what they are worth, even without establishing the exact reading.

(1) If a story is about something that doesn't typically happen, it is less likely than otherwise.
(2) Someone else carrying a cross for the condemned doesn't typically happen.
(3) So, this story is less likely than otherwise.

And also, a more complicated one, for those who would find the Gospel of Mark to be late enough (say, second century).

(1) If the Gospel of Mark is second century, Alexander and Rufus could not be actual living sons of Simon the Cyrenian known only locally to contemporaries including the author of Mark.
(2) If a Rufus is not elsewhere mentioned along with Alexander and if a Rufus is mentioned elsewhere as a martyr with others but not including Alexander, it is unlikely that the Gospel of Mark is talking about well-known dead persons who were actual dead sons of Simon the Cyrenian.
(3) Rufus is not elsewhere mentioned along with Alexander and if a Rufus is mentioned elsewhere as a martyr with others but not including Alexander
(4) The Gospel of Mark is second century.**
(5) Therefore, it is unlikely that the Gospel of Mark is talking about well-known dead persons who were actual dead sons of Simon the Cyrenian.
(6) Therefore, Alexander and Rufus could not be actual living sons of Simon the Cyrenian known only locally to contemporaries including the author of Mark.
(6) if it is unlikely that the Gospel of Mark is talking about well-known dead persons who were actual dead sons of Simon the Cyrenian and if Alexander and Rufus could not be actual living sons of Simon the Cyrenian known only locally to contemporaries including the author of Mark, then it is unlikely that the Gospel of Mark is talking about actual people named Alexander and Rufus who were actual sons of Simon the Cyrenian.
(7) Therefore, it is unlikely that the Gospel of Mark is talking about actual people named Alexander and Rufus who were actual sons of Simon the Cyrenian.

And if we can accept either of those conclusions (story is likely fiction and/or Alexander and Rufus likely not being the actual sons of this Simon the Cyrenian), then we shouldn't be overly cautious about any possible non-literal interpretations (IMO). And this is without considering the rest of the context.

** While this would be the rejected conclusion for most, perhaps there is another reason for distrusting the idea that Alexander and Rufus were living people who were the sons of Simon as a conclusion. For example, Neil mention that the idea of 'winking' to the audience by mentioning people known to them in a story that otherwise doesn't involve any of the audience, being perhaps a little unusual for an ostensibly biographical (or whatever they're calling it these days) account. If so, the argument could be reformulated with that consideration being drawn upon to indicate against a reference to living people here.

Perhaps it is also not out of line to see the correspondences to the scripture in the passion narrative, including here, as an argument... like I was saying in that other thread...

[Ben C. Smith]

For example, Neil mention that the idea of 'winking' to the audience by mentioning people known to them in a story that otherwise doesn't involve any of the audience, being perhaps a little unusual for an ostensibly biographical (or whatever they're calling it these days) account.

I see Mark 13.14 as a possible wink to the audience, as well, though in a different way. Unless Mark (A) is imagining Jesus as having addressed readers of Daniel amongst his disciples on Olivet, it looks like Mark has either (B) stepped out of the narrative for a moment to directly address readers of his gospel or (C) made Jesus to step out of the narrative for a moment to directly address readers of Daniel (or of the gospel?). I have to admit that C sounds a bit postmodern to me.

And if we can accept either of those conclusions (story is likely fiction and/or Alexander and Rufus likely not being the actual sons of this Simon the Cyrenian), then we shouldn't be overly cautious about any possible non-literal interpretations (IMO).

If Mark is from century II, and literal fatherhood is therefore rendered unlikely, then what about spiritual fatherhood of some kind? Like how Jabal is the father of those who dwell in tents and run cattle and his brother Jubal is the father of those who play the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4.20-21). Of course there is so little detail given (the compulsion, the cross) that it would be hard to discern what Simon was spiritually fathering here; I have not thought this through in any way; just spitting (um, I mean putting) it out there.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

I will once again advance my nihilistic POV. The demand to 'make sense' of a given passage inevitably leads to uncertain arguments but in the egoism inherent in defending a position - a position which originally began as a 'maybe' against someone else's uncertain guesswork certainty emerges (psychologically speaking, getting angry leads to the necessity of being right, it's an evolutionary instinct). What I like about these forums is that we can leave things at maybe. Being a professional scholar assumes some sort of 'productivity' at the end of all research. Most of the time that certainty is unwarranted given the lack of evidence.

These threads are full of scribbles, marginalia. But in reality the paucity of surviving evidence from the earliest paperwork warrants only doodles and sketches of ideas not final or 'absolute' knowledge.

[Peter Kirby]

For example, Neil mention that the idea of 'winking' to the audience by mentioning people known to them in a story that otherwise doesn't involve any of the audience, being perhaps a little unusual for an ostensibly biographical (or whatever they're calling it these days) account.

I see Mark 13.14 as a possible wink to the audience, as well, though in a different way. Unless Mark (A) is imagining Jesus as having addressed readers of Daniel amongst his disciples on Olivet, it looks like Mark has either (B) stepped out of the narrative for a moment to directly address readers of his gospel or (C) made Jesus to step out of the narrative for a moment to directly address readers of Daniel (or of the gospel?). I have to admit that C sounds a bit postmodern to me.

If this is the way in which the author of Mark would have addressed his audience particularly, doesn't this actually tend to undermine the argument that Mark 15:21 is such a case? Because the reader is being parenthetically alerted to the special meaning of 'abomination of desolation', by reference to the 'reader'. We know that the narrative has been "stepped out of" because the author of Mark explicitly says he is stepping out of it, in order to offer a note alerting the reader to be aware of something.

Along the same lines of Mark 13:14, might not Mark have said something ever so slightly different--for example, 'who was the father of Alexander our brother and Rufus'. Because with just two words, a pronoun and a verb (who was, this was, his sons are, etc.**), the author might have significantly shaken the reader out of the narrative enough to alert the reader to the fact that he is doing so (especially if we don't assume that Mark was writing for a limited audience, thus perhaps requiring that any inside references be written in a way that both those in the immediate audience and those in the wider audience wouldn't be tripped up). Two more words (our brother, our brothers... idk, the tanner, of Crete, whatever) could have removed doubt about which Alexander or which Rufus was meant. Several have noted (a) Alexander and Rufus are very common names and (b) it is rare to 'identify' people by the names of their sons (thus, let alone such common names). The lack of any real specificity is surprising, and it still remains a bit surprising, even if there were a contemporary Alexander and Rufus, when we consider that the author may have taken a bit more care to clarify (again, for the sake of a more than limited audience). It's not as if we have any evidence that Alexander and Rufus were like Peter and Paul, famous people in the early Christian world that need not be introduced. Perhaps this paragraph assumes too much, but the next one is strictly on point.

Also, I'm not sure that Mark 13:14 is specifically referring to the local or contemporary readership. It actually doesn't read that way to me t all. It could very well be timeless in its scope, in which case almost all of the shared context and link with the Mark 15:21 discussion is severed. Of course the author of Mark is allowed to address its reader (or lector, if the intention is to have the person reading it out loud have a clue to the interpretation of this passage to the audience hearing it orally).

Finally, and most importantly I guess, this may be called 'winking', but the word alone is not the point. The point if I understand Neil's point regards the introduction of these characters/people who are not actually part of the subject at all, being mentioned (hypothetically) as people who were not part of the story but were known to people (readers) later on... and then doing nothing with it. It's rightly odd ... if the genre of bioi ("lives" of famous men) or something like it is right, anyway.

** This argument might be made stronger or weaker by an analysis of other Greek authors and when they do or do not employ such constructions to introduce people or the further relations of people.

And if we can accept either of those conclusions (story is likely fiction and/or Alexander and Rufus likely not being the actual sons of this Simon the Cyrenian), then we shouldn't be overly cautious about any possible non-literal interpretations (IMO).

If Mark is from century II, and literal fatherhood is therefore rendered unlikely, then what about spiritual fatherhood of some kind? Like how Jabal is the father of those who dwell in tents and run cattle and his brother Jubal is the father of those who play the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4.20-21). Of course there is so little detail given (the compulsion, the cross) that it would be hard to discern what Simon was spiritually fathering here; I have not thought this through in any way; just spitting (um, I mean putting) it out there.

That's a non-literal reading (IMO), and the conclusion (after the two arguments) was that we should be open to (a variety of) non-literal readings. [Along the lines that you just mentioned, one person I read has suggested that Alexander is the father of the Gentiles, because Alexander is like the famous one and he's like the stand-in for the Greeks while Rufus is spelled with a second letter O in the Greek and so he is like all the Romans.... yes, people are scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. Even for the Bible, it's rare to see such cacophony.]

[Ben C. Smith]

If this is the way in which the author of Mark would have addressed his audience particularly, doesn't this actually tend to undermine the argument that Mark 15:21 is such a case?

I tend to view a single instance of a thing as far too little to base a specific pattern on. My only point in turning to Mark 13.14 was to explore the fact that he can step outside the narrative. To derive a pattern of expected behavior from one other instance just seems hazardous.

Also, I'm not sure that Mark 13:14 is specifically referring to the local or contemporary readership. It could very well be timeless in its scope, in which case almost all of the shared context and link with the Mark 15:21 discussion is severed.

He is still stepping outside of the narrative, no matter how timeless he imagines his readers to be.

This argument might be made stronger or weaker by an analysis of other Greek authors and when they do or do not employ such constructions to introduce people or the further relations of people.

I have done some preliminary poking around on that, but it seems pretty hard so far to find instances that are actually, truly similar to Ruth 4.17 and Mark 15.21. Most of the time, the author seems to be calling on the relation precisely in order to identify the character being talked about. I found an instance in Apollonius, for example, in which the sage identifies Darius, ruler of Persia, by reference to two of his sons, but since there were several Persian rulers named Darius, and since Apollonius offers no other identifier for this particular Darius, the sons are obviously being referenced merely for identification, unlike David for Obed (already the son of Ruth) in Ruth 4.17 and Alexander and Rufus for Simon (already the Cyrenian) in Mark 15.21. I found a couple instances in Josephus of a person being identified by his progeny, but that progeny is described elsewhere in the same work (unlike Simon in Mark and David in Ruth). It has been slow going.

If Mark is from century II, and literal fatherhood is therefore rendered unlikely, then what about spiritual fatherhood of some kind? Like how Jabal is the father of those who dwell in tents and run cattle and his brother Jubal is the father of those who play the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4.20-21). Of course there is so little detail given (the compulsion, the cross) that it would be hard to discern what Simon was spiritually fathering here; I have not thought this through in any way; just spitting (um, I mean putting) it out there.

That's a non-literal reading (IMO), and the conclusion (after the two arguments) was that we should be open to (a variety of) non-literal readings.

Well, yes. Quite. That was the point. I was trying my hand at a non-literal reading. All the other kids on the forum are doing it. Help me out, man.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

If this is the way in which the author of Mark would have addressed his audience particularly, doesn't this actually tend to undermine the argument that Mark 15:21 is such a case?

I tend to view a single instance of a thing as far too little to base a specific pattern on. My only point in turning to Mark 13.14 was to explore the fact that he can step outside the narrative. To derive a pattern of expected behavior from one other instance just seems hazardous.

Also, I'm not sure that Mark 13:14 is specifically referring to the local or contemporary readership. It could very well be timeless in its scope, in which case almost all of the shared context and link with the Mark 15:21 discussion is severed.

He is still stepping outside of the narrative, no matter how timeless he imagines his readers to be.

If you are just giving us a piece of background data and asking us to consider how it may or may not be relevant, that's of course completely appreciated.

The significance, however, is something that seems to be very limited. It certainly does not seem to disconfirm or establish any reading or argument for a reading of Mark 15:21, unless I am missing something here, which I'd be glad to understand.

I wanted to show appreciation and interaction with the reference before finally coming to what was actually my first thought (edited in):

Finally, and most importantly I guess, this may be called 'winking', but the word alone is not the point. The point if I understand Neil's point regards the introduction of these characters/people who are not actually part of the subject at all, being mentioned (hypothetically) as people who were not part of the story but were known to people (readers) later on... and then doing nothing with it. It's rightly odd ... if the genre of bioi ("lives" of famous men) or something like it is right, anyway.

In the context of the discussion, less important than whether 13:14 could be considered "stepping out of the narrative" is whether the reference sheds any light on whether and in what respect Mark 15:21 is to be considered unusual. The conclusion perhaps is, if Mark 15:21 is unusual (and it certainly can be considered unusual still), it is not due to its very limited similarity to Mark 13:14 and the idea of "stepping out of narrative" in a very generalized category. It is still considered unusual (for those for whom it is) due to other attributes, and this limits the relevance of 13:14.

[Peter Kirby]

I have done some preliminary poking around on that, but it seems pretty hard so far to find instances that are actually, truly similar to Ruth 4.17 and Mark 15.21. Most of the time, the author seems to be calling on the relation precisely in order to identify the character being talked about. I found an instance in Apollonius, for example, in which the sage identifies Darius, ruler of Persia, by reference to two of his sons, but since there were several Persian rulers named Darius, and since Apollonius offers no other identifier for this particular Darius, the sons are obviously being referenced merely for identification, unlike David for Obed (already the son of Ruth) in Ruth 4.17 and Alexander and Rufus for Simon (already the Cyrenian) in Mark 15.21. I found a couple instances in Josephus of a person being identified by his progeny, but that progeny is described elsewhere in the same work (unlike Simon in Mark and David in Ruth). It has been slow going.

I appreciate you sharing what you've found so far, even if the search is frustrating, difficult, slow going, and once again frustrating due to the ambiguity of it all... I've been there myself, trying to show something or other about ancient Greek, and it is really tough work sorting through it all and picking up on anything actually useful.

That's a non-literal reading (IMO), and the conclusion (after the two arguments) was that we should be open to (a variety of) non-literal readings.

Well, yes. Quite. That was the point. I was trying my hand at a non-literal reading. All the other kids on the forum are doing it. Help me out, man.

Ben.

Okay then.

[Ben C. Smith]

In the context of the discussion, less important than whether 13:14 could be considered "stepping out of the narrative" is whether the reference sheds any light on whether and in what respect Mark 15:21 is to be considered unusual.

I went back to read what Neil had originally written about winking to the audience, and it seems I misunderstood the thrust of what he was saying. I had actually interpreted him to mean that Mark would not step out of the narrative to wink at the audience like that; against such a statement Mark 13.14 seems quite fitting. But that is not what he was about. I think he was using the metaphor in a way similar to how you are using it. And I misunderstood. So never mind all that. Sorry.

I do agree, of course, based especially on my searches so far, that this specific kind of stepping out of the narrative seems unusual. I have considered as a possible analogy the array of Old Testament statements, not to mention a few in Herodotus, about events in the past having affected current affairs or having left monuments that remain to this day. The narrative is being stepped out of chronologically in both cases, and in a forward direction, and without explicitly using the first person or calling upon the reader in second person. But I am as yet unsure what to make of the similarities versus the differences.

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

I am also reminded of warnings against making too much of any passage in a text like this given that we have no way of being sure how much detail we have today was original to the gospel (did Matthew and Luke omit the names because they were not in their version of Mark?). I'd be interested to hear Roger's reasons for suspecting the names to be a redactional addition.

The warning is sound--too much cannot be made of any one sentence, given that we don't have autographs, if we don't want a castle built on sand.

I don't believe it were an addition, but if it were an addition, we could start by going through the list of ideas that have been proposed under the hypothesis that it is authorial. Some of them would still be candidates.

I will mention here that I am surprised that the thread has gone this long without anyone pointing out that the literal interpretation most frequently suggested (that Alexander and Rufus were real people, known because they were still living and perhaps in Rome, and Simon were their father) essentially requires that the Gospel of Mark were written in the first century, and even 90 CE would be quite a stretch. (I suppose there's still the idea that Alexander and Rufus were famous dead people. We have just enough indications of the notoriety of some kind of "Rufus," given Romans 16 and/or Polycarp to the Philippians, but neither Rufus is grouped with an Alexander... does this perhaps count against the idea that there were a famous, deceased -pair- Alexander and Rufus? Note that 'Polycarp' lists his Rufus with some guy Zosimus and with Ignatius.)

I did suggest in an earlier post in this thread, that the presence of Alexander and Rufus in Mark but not in either Matthew or Luke could be explained by Alexander and Eufus being alive when Mark was written but dead when Matthew and Luke were written.

Andrew Criddle