Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Before I check out Peter's link, I'd like to ask if the thread has addressed the following:

1. Saint Mark, according to some Coptic historians, was from Cyrene. If true, he would have probably known Simon if he or his family had become early Christians.
2. In Acts 11 a group from Cyrene went to Antioch and preached to Gentiles. Paul joins them and when he hears of a famine he collects money and goes to Jerusalem. He returns to Antioch with John Mark. This group may well have included a Simeon from Cyrene!:

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

It is not a stretch to consider that Simeon mentioned in Acts 13 was - like Lucius and possibly John Mark - who Paul brought with him - from Cyrene.

3. Paul shows great affinity for Rufus' mother saying in Romans 16:13 that she was like a mother to him, when writing to the Romans. The implication is that the believers in Rome knew Rufus and his mother, and that Paul knew them too from someplace other than Rome, most likely in his preaching travels - and some place he had stayed at for some time, since he had not yet visited Rome.

4. The gospel of Mark is believed by many to have been written for believers in Rome.

The above considerations would explain:

1. why John Mark joined Paul to meet up with Simeon the Niger and others at Antioch.
2. how Paul knew someone named Rufus and his mother who lived or were going to Rome before Paul did
3. why the author of Mark mentions Alexander and Rufus as though his readers knew them
4. why the book of Mark may have been written by this same Mark.

Perhaps this fleshes out the reasoning a bit better: https://books.google.com/books?id=0YqIz ... ne&f=false

1. Saint Mark, according to some Coptic historians, was from Cyrene. If true, he would have probably known Simon if he or his family had become early Christians.

Oy veh! Coptic historians? Come on have you read this nonsense? Please read the source material before you cite it as credible. It's like saying - the Acts of Peter and Paul say that Simon Magus flew in a stadium and it was witnessed by over 40,000 people. And then he resurrected a man in front of the crowds. Lo and behold - look at all the history! At least the Acts of Peter and Paul was developed in the second century. But still!

No I haven't read it, but does it really matter? I mean, absent a causal link between Simone from Cyrene and Mark from Cyrene what are the odds that the Coptics coincidentally thought Mark was from the same place? What are the odds that somebody the Coptics say was from Cyrene would have joined up with -- the Cyrenian's in Antioch? What are the odds that the same group would include somebody named (only a handful were named) Simeon the Niger - who WASN'T the same Simon from Cyrene in Africa, when Niger is most likely a name given only to someone from Africa? What are the odds that if the author of Mark WASN'T from Cyrene he seems to be very familiar with the sons of somebody from Cyrene?

When you look at the probabilities I'd say there may be something to the Coptic claims. Otherwise it seems the number of links would be quite unexpected. Again, I said "absent a causal link", as they may have determined Cyrene was a likely place of origin for Mark for the very reasons mentioned above.

SO, an appropriate question given your reasonable concern is this: Why do the Coptic historians think/say Mark was from Cyrene?

What an Americanism. No shame in being ignorant. Why do I have to learn stuff when it gets in the way of me believing what I want? Ummm. Cyrene was also a Coptic center in late antiquity. If you read the material (I know it's hard but try) Mark is born in Jerusalem then moves to Cyrene and then settles in Alexandria. But the earliest material has no mention of a trip to Cyrene. Funny how history gets better and more accurate the longer it takes to develop.

Actually the "Coptic historians" = Coptic historian Severus only says the following Ted

In the time of the dispensation of the merciful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when he appointed for himself disciples to follow him, there were two brothers living in a city of Pentapolis in the West, called Cyrene. The name of the elder of them was Aristobulus, and the name of the other was Barnabas;

You really believe that Barnabus was Mark's uncle?

So both Mark's dad and uncle were from Cyrene and were disciples and in the same "history" Simon of Cyrene was the man in Mark carrying the water who leads the disciples to the meeting room. Come on. Where does this slavish devotion to myths end? ...

And I have a much more liberal view of what can be teased out of tradition than most. For instance I can accept the following about St Mark:

1. maybe was born in Jerusalem or Judea (or someone where therein)
2. had property in Jerusalem
3. went to Alexandria
4. founded churches and monasteries (as per Eusebius)
5. wrote the first gospel
6. was a historical person

The only suggestion here that isn't datable back to our earliest sources is 'had property in Jerusalem (which acted as the first Christian meeting place') which is Coptic. Alternatively could all be development from the Aramaic word mrq = the purify, cleanse. Who knows.

Secret Alias wrote:What an Americanism. No shame in being ignorant. Why do I have to learn stuff when it gets in the way of me believing what I want?

This is offensive. There IS no shame in being ignorant. We are all ignorant Stephan. I only have so much time. Rather than be an asshole, why don't you simply read what I've written and respond in a more civil manner?