Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Secret Alias]

παράγοντά = (bad Greek translation of) עברי = proselyte

[TedM]

Definitely. I didn't know Rufus was a common name, so that might make some difference, but I still would wonder if there was a prominent early Christian that Mark's readers knew in Rome named Rufus, whether 1. Paul would not have known of him or 2. Paul knew of him but didn't distinguish him from 'his' Rufus when writing to Rome (presumably the same believers).

What if during Paul's time there was only one Rufus of note in the Roman community but by Mark's time another Rufus was in the mix? Even on some pretty traditional dating schemes, a lot can happen between, say, 57 and some time after 70. Open the dates up a bit and things can change even more.

What is needed it Rufus, son of Simon. Since Paul doesn't say that his was the one we want, it doesn't help us. Let's say the name was extremely uncommon. It still doesn't help, does it? We might say - aha he existed as a historical person, but all we really can say is that Paul's Rufus existed - we can't prove that Mark wasn't using his name just for fun - ie something other than 'plain reading' can we? So, does it really even matter if the name Rufus was common or not? Maybe looking at Paul's Rufus is barking up the wrong tree. Maybe it really comes down to whether Mark was writing fiction with real characters thrown in, or in this passage was actually writing 'plainly'.

I knew Simon was common so that one doesn't affect my thinking. I think it is likely that Simeon the Niger traveled with Lucius from Cyrene to Antioch, given how it is presented in Acts 11 & 13. Whether that was the SAME Simon as the one who carried the cross I'm less comfortable saying.

What strikes me is how Mark 15.21 seems to imply that Rufus and Alexander were known to the author and his readership whereas Simon was not. After all, Simon is introduced as "a passerby" and then identified both by his place of origin and by his sons. It would seem that Simon needs an introduction, but his sons do not.

Yeah. But its the Alexander and Rufus identification which makes this verse so unique. Everything else seems to be about telling the story without a nod to his readers, perhaps? So why should Simon be any different? Gotta run.

[Ben C. Smith]

Definitely. I didn't know Rufus was a common name, so that might make some difference, but I still would wonder if there was a prominent early Christian that Mark's readers knew in Rome named Rufus, whether 1. Paul would not have known of him or 2. Paul knew of him but didn't distinguish him from 'his' Rufus when writing to Rome (presumably the same believers).

What if during Paul's time there was only one Rufus of note in the Roman community but by Mark's time another Rufus was in the mix? Even on some pretty traditional dating schemes, a lot can happen between, say, 57 and some time after 70. Open the dates up a bit and things can change even more.

What is needed it Rufus, son of Simon. Since Paul doesn't say that his was the one we want, it doesn't help us.

I agree that the Rufus in Romans 16.13 is at best a possible match for Rufus the son of Simon. The two data that line up (the name Rufus and the possibly Roman provenance of Mark) are both quite unremarkable (Rufus being a very common Latin name, Rome being the most populous city in the Mediterranean world at that time). The match is a nice thought, but there is no real evidence for it.

Maybe it really comes down to whether Mark was writing fiction with real characters thrown in, or in this passage was actually writing 'plainly'.

And that is what suggestions like Carrier's and Kirby's are trying to do: find alternatives to the "plain" reading of the verse. And I so far have yet to read one that makes more sense than the plain reading of the verse. Neil Godfrey has offered the best alternative, I believe: maybe Mark and his readers had two friends named Rufus and Alexander and worked their names into the account fictionally. That at least retains one of the strongest points of the plain reading: it appears that these two individuals were known to writer and/or readers. But still, IMHO, the plain reading is stronger: Mark 15.21 is a claim that two people known to author and/or readers were the sons of a witness to the passion. The claim may yet be true or false, but that appears to me to be the claim.

Yeah. But its the Alexander and Rufus identification which makes this verse so unique.

Well, quite. I have before compared it to Ruth 4.17, where Obed is identified as the grandfather of David. The known figure in that verse is clearly David; and I feel certain the author regarded David as a real historical figure who would be known to his or her readers.

Ben.

[Giuseppe]

If it can be interesting, I see these parallelisms between Mark 13 and all the events of the Passion in the Gospel story.

I remember that table because I see a particular parallelism that may explain partially the episode of Simon of Cyrene :

Mark 13:15-16 :

15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.

Mark 15:

21 A passerby named Simon, who was from Cyrene, was coming in from the countryside just then, and the soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross. (Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus.)

The 'sin' of Simon (if a 'sin' is in view, obviously), ''coming from countryside'', was precisely ''to come back to get his cloak''.

If the Golgotha is simbolically the fall of Jerusalem, then Cyrene is the city of the Diaspora crushed by Roman repression, sharing the fate of Jerusalem. The message is: nothing escapes the divine wrath. Even the Christian gentiles - not only the Jewish-Christians - are not forgiven when they ignore the Gospel. Read otherwise: Cyrene shares the fate of Jerusalem even if it is a more innocent city in comparison.

Rufus and Alexander would replace the Pillars son of Zebedee (I wonder if they were the two crucified !) just as Simon would replace Simon Peter. But the point of Mark is that the replacement doesn't mean by need more glory for them: they also are blind people (therefore they are named).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Maybe it really comes down to whether Mark was writing fiction with real characters thrown in, or in this passage was actually writing 'plainly'.

And that is what suggestions like Carrier's and Kirby's are trying to do: find alternatives to the "plain" reading of the verse. And I so far have yet to read one that makes more sense than the plain reading of the verse.

In one of our threads about Simon of Cyrene I agreed that this explanation is quite possible. However, I doubt a bit, that it is the “plain” reading of the verse. I would agree with you if the wording would be

And they compelled Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was coming in from the field and passing by, to take up his cross.

But the wording is

And they compelled a passerby, Simon Kyrenaion, who was coming in from the field, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to take up his cross.

As I said before to me the greatest curiosity of the verse is not that Simon is identified by his sons. It is that the identification is interrupted by the phrase “who was coming in from the field”, a unique case not just in ancient literature.

[Ben C. Smith]

Maybe it really comes down to whether Mark was writing fiction with real characters thrown in, or in this passage was actually writing 'plainly'.

And that is what suggestions like Carrier's and Kirby's are trying to do: find alternatives to the "plain" reading of the verse. And I so far have yet to read one that makes more sense than the plain reading of the verse.

In one of our threads about Simon of Cyrene I agreed that this explanation is quite possible. However, I doubt a bit, that it is the “plain” reading of the verse. I would agree with you if the wording would be

And they compelled Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was coming in from the field and passing by, to take up his cross.

But the wording is

And they compelled a passerby, Simon Kyrenaion, who was coming in from the field, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to take up his cross.

As I said before to me the greatest curiosity of the verse is not that Simon is identified by his sons. It is that the identification is interrupted by the phrase “who was coming in from the field”, a unique case not just in ancient literature.

What do you think this placement of ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ means?

[DCHindley]

What do you think this placement of ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ means?

If you mean placement in the pericope, I do not know.

Simon probably should have heeded the advice of the Sibyl:

"Keep from your neighbor's field (ἀγροῦ γειτονέοντος ἀπόσχου), nor trespass on it" = Pseudo-Phocylides 1:35 "Keep off the field of a neighbor (ἀγροῦ γειτονέοντος ἀπόσχεο) and therefore do not be a trespasser" Sibylline Oracle 2:100.

On a more serious note, the account may be a veiled prediction of the woes to come over the city of Jerusalem and the Judean people. See the story of Abimelech in 4 Baruch 5:15, who falls asleep for 66 years to find Jerusalem almost vacant and Jeremiah & the people exiled to Babylon:

"While he was seated, he saw a certain old man coming from the field, (εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ) and Abimelech says to him: "To you I say, old fellow, what city is this?" 16 And he said to him: "It is Jerusalem." 17 And Abimelech says to him: "Where is Jeremiah the priest, and Baruch the secretary, and all the people of this city, because I have not found them?" 18 And the elder said to him: "Are you not of this city, having remembered today Jeremiach, that you have asked concerning him, after so much time? 19 For Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people; for they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar the king, and with them is Jeremiah, proclaiming good news to them and teaching them the word."

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

What do you think this placement of ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ means?

If you mean placement in the pericope, I do not know.

I mean its placement where Kunigunde mentioned: in between the name Simon and the family relationship with his sons.

On a more serious note, the account may be a veiled prediction of the woes to come over the city of Jerusalem and the Judean people. See the story of Abimelech in 4 Baruch 5:15, who falls asleep for 66 years to find Jerusalem almost vacant and Jeremiah & the people exiled to Babylon:

"While he was seated, he saw a certain old man coming from the field, (εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ) and Abimelech says to him: "To you I say, old fellow, what city is this?" 16 And he said to him: "It is Jerusalem." 17 And Abimelech says to him: "Where is Jeremiah the priest, and Baruch the secretary, and all the people of this city, because I have not found them?" 18 And the elder said to him: "Are you not of this city, having remembered today Jeremiach, that you have asked concerning him, after so much time? 19 For Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people; for they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar the king, and with them is Jeremiah, proclaiming good news to them and teaching them the word."

Or maybe it has to do with hospitality because of Judges 19.16; or maybe it has to do with King Saul because of 1 Samuel 11.5; or maybe it is a variant of the story of the prodigal son because of Luke 15.25. It is just too common a concept; it points everywhere, and therefore it points nowhere.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
A relatively high percent of GMark consists of the impossible and a relatively high percent consists of the improbable. Therefore, I think the default conclusion is that any individual part of GMark is more likely fiction than history. In this unholy Forum though the emphasis should be on evidence and not conclusions.

One way to measure relative evidence for fiction is to determine the percent of pieces of information in a section that have evidence of fiction. For the offending verse:

15:21

Information	Evidence of fiction	Commentary
And they compel one passing by,	Unlikely	Unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake
Simon	Repetition	5 different Simons
of Cyrene,	Unusual presentation	The Greek is not "of Cyrene", it's "Cyrenian", a name and not a derivative
coming from the country,	Contrived/Unorthodox	Greek is "from the field" same as the LA and interrupts the identification
the father of	Unorthodox	Identification is normally by father.
Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them],	Unusual	Alexander is a Greek name and Rufus is a Latin name
that he might bear his cross.	Contrived	Simon the lead disciple abandons Jesus and a different Simon takes up Jesus' stake

Every piece of information here tests positive for fiction.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[MrMacSon]

ROMAN CYRENE
The Roman occupation actually helped Cyrene to increase its status: the Ptolemaic rulers administered Cyrenaica from the city of Ptolemais and the importance of Cyrene declined during their time. The Romans, on the other hand, granted Cyrene the title of metropolis and turned the city into the local centre of administration; Cyrene prospered once more. The beginning of the end of this new prosperity period came towards the last days of Emperor Trajan’s reign (r. 98-117 BCE), when a revolt led by the local Jewish community against the Romans took place. This was a major episode of social disorder which suggests that the local Jewish community increased significantly during the Ptolemaic period and early Roman occupation. The conflict lasted from 115 to 117 CE and it had a disastrous impact on the economy and demographics, in addition, causing serious damage to the city's buildings.

The Roman Emperor Hadrian (r. 117-138 CE) did all he could to restore Cyrenes’s former glory: he encouraged the migration of new settlers in Cyrene and made funds available to rebuild the most important structures ruined during the revolt. Despite these imperial efforts, the city never fully recovered and even some of the major buildings remained unrepaired seventy years later. http://www.ancient.eu/cyrene/