Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Joe, I still don't see why you think it is unlikely that someone passing by would be forced to carry the cross. On what do you base that?

Carry a whole stauros (stake) large enough to support a man or a cross piece?

JW:
Now the Luke, huh:

Information Mark 15:21	Information Matthew 27:32	Information Luke 23:26	Differences	Commentary
And they compel one passing by,	And as they came out, they found...him they compelled to go [with them]	And when they led him away, they laid hold upon	1. "Mark"/"Luke" have "forced". "Matthew" has "employed". 2. "Mark" has "passing by". "Matthew" has "found".	1. "Mark" is more unlikely. 2. "Mark" is more unlikely as it indicates a coincidence. Again, unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake. Forcing an unrelated passerby is especially unlikely as per "Mark" a large group would have been following.
Simon	Simon by name	one Simon	None	An unusual amount of Simons relative to other names used here which just happens to be the name of the second most important character. 5 different Simons
of Cyrene,	a man of Cyrene	of Cyrene	"Matthew"/"Luke" make clear the Cyrene connection.	"Mark" is unusual. The Greek ("Mark") is not "of Cyrene", it's "Cyrenian", a name and not a derivative
coming from the country,		coming from the country	"Matthew" has exorcised.	"Mark" is Contrived/Unorthodox. Greek is "from the field" same as the LA and interrupts the identification
the father of			"Matthew"/"Luke" have exorcised.	"Mark" is unorthodox. Identification is normally by father.
Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them],			"Matthew"/"Luke" have exorcised.	"Mark" is unusual. Alexander is a Greek name and Rufus is a Latin name
that he might bear his cross.	that he might bear his cross	and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus	"Matthew" none. "Luke" has substituted "take up" with "laid upon to carry".	"Mark"/"Matthew" Greek is "take up" rather than "carry". Unusual and fits the previous disciple instruction of "taking up the stake". Simon the lead disciple abandons Jesus and a different Simon takes up Jesus' stake. "Luke" has a usual description.

Again, it's safe to say that "Mark's" presentation is more unusual than "Luke's" (author). Between "Matthew"/"Luke" they have changed every piece of information here to sound more usual except for the name "Simon".


Joseph

The New Porphyry

"Matthew"/"Luke" make clear the Cyrene connection. "Mark" is unusual. The Greek ("Mark") is not "of Cyrene", it's "Cyrenian", a name and not a derivative.

What does "a name and not a derivative" mean in this context? "Cyrenian" is a demonym, just like "American" or "Russian". I do not know what you mean by calling it a "name".

You say that Matthew and Luke make the Cyrene connection clear: okay, how do they make it any clearer than what Mark has?


They all use the demonym Κυρηναῖος, which means Cyrenian. (Some manuscripts of Luke have the entire phrase in the genitive, since ἐπιλαμβάνω, the Lucan verb, can take either the accusative or the genitive.)

Again, unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake. Forcing an unrelated passerby is especially unlikely as per "Mark" a large group would have been following.

This logic completely escapes me. Roman soldiers would not give a rip who it was or whither and whence he was going.

"Mark" is unorthodox. Identification is normally by father.

Somehow, without even an attempt to address my rather detailed argument against Alexander and Rufus being here for the sake of identification, this line makes the table again. You are right, Joe. Identifying Simon by his sons would be a bit unusual if that were what was going on here. But it is not. Simon is identified as "a Cyrenian", and his sons are there for other reasons.

Ben.

Here are some miscellaneous uses of the demonym Κυρηναῖος used in an indefinite sense (that is, without the definite article) just as it is in Mark 15.21:


(I could not find an online translation for the third passage, so that one is my own.) All of these instances could be translated as "X, a Cyrenian," though most English translations tend to use "of Cyrene" instead (as can be seen above in the translations that are not mine: same trend as we see in many, if not most, translations of Matthew 27.32 = Mark 15.21 = Luke 23.26).

Ben.

TedM wrote: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?

TedM wrote:Are you telling me that Coptic historians cannot be trusted with respect to their opinion that Mark was from Cyrene? That's really all that I am interested in.

What you view as coincidences corroborating the Coptic tradition, I could also view as possible explanations for the source of the Coptic tradition. These historians could read the New Testament as well as we can, so it is very hard to know which view is correct here.

Peter Kirby wrote:

TedM wrote: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?

TedM wrote:Are you telling me that Coptic historians cannot be trusted with respect to their opinion that Mark was from Cyrene? That's really all that I am interested in.

What you view as coincidences corroborating the Coptic tradition, I could also view as possible explanations for the source of the Coptic tradition. These historians could read the New Testament as well as we can, so it is very hard to know which view is correct here.

Yes and thanks. It maybe wasn't clear but I was allowing for this. It is what I meant when referring to a 'causal link'. When I wrote this I knew nothing about Coptic history and whether their claim is due to reading the New Testament or something else. A few of the answers on this thread basically say there is little credible to Coptic history. I don't know how true that is but can't take the time to dig further right now.

JW:
One at a time and let's add "John" (author):

Information Mark 15:21	Information Matthew 27:32	Information Luke 23:26	Information John 19:7	Differences	Commentary
And they compel one passing by,	And as they came out, they found...him they compelled to go [with them]	And when they led him away, they laid hold upon	They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself	1. "Mark"/"Luke" have "forced". "Matthew" has "employed". 2. "Mark" has "passing by". "Matthew" has "found". "John" exorcises.	1. "Mark" is more unlikely. 2. "Mark" is more unlikely as it indicates a coincidence. Again, unlikely that someone just passing by would be forced to carry the stake. Forcing an unrelated passerby is especially unlikely as per "Mark" a large group would have been following.

JW:
Reasons to think "Mark's" presentation here is unusual:

Crucifixion

1) Mention of detail

Why mention who carried the stake? What difference would that make in a usual narrative? I have faith that most such narratives do not mention this. "John" has exorcised but that does look like a reaction to "Mark".

2) General procedure

As Wikipedia indicates the general procedure was for the condemned to carry the stake. Was Jesus unable to carry the stake or did he refuse (what would they do if he refused?)? "Mark" doesn't say explicitly. "Mark" does say that Jesus was scourged (whipped) but seriously injuring would go against the primary purpose of crucifying which was slow, lengthy, helpless suffering in public. "Mark" does say that Pilate was surprised Jesus died so quickly. I guess Pilate would have known his condition in his presence. Maybe Jesus had a weak heart.

3) Specific selection of Simon

The sense of "Mark" is that the crucifixion party is going out and Simon is coming in. If someone needed to carry the stake, why not select someone or someone's that was going there anyway?

4) Timing of selection

"Mark" indicates that the decision to force Simon was made on the way to crucifixion (unless this Simon's usual path to the city went through the Praetorium). Quite a coincidence that at this exact moment they decided that Jesus would/could not carry the stake.

To me the above indicates that "Mark's" presentation here is unusual in general, unusual compared to the other evangelists and unusual compared to other ancient crucifixion narratives. I am especially interested in what you think Ben. I'm also interested in what KK thinks.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

JoeWallack wrote:Reasons to think "Mark's" presentation here is unusual:

1) Mention of detail

Why mention who carried the stake? What difference would that make in a usual narrative? I have faith that most such narratives do not mention this. "John" has exorcised but that does look like a reaction to "Mark".

First of all, John has most certainly not excised mention of who is carrying the cross. John 19.17 pointedly remarks that Jesus is bearing his own cross. But I do agree that this looks like a reaction to Mark.

But let us imagine for a moment that it is unusual for narratives to mention who is carrying the cross to the place of execution. Let us imagine that we ought to find some motive for the author to have included this detail. Is it not the case, Joe, that what I am calling the "plain reading" of the line about Rufus and Alexander supplies exactly such a motive? If Mark and/or his readership knew (of) Alexander and Rufus, well, then manifestly that is at least one splendid reason why Mark mentioned this detail.

Either you can wonder why your friend has just shown up at your bicycle shop all wet and dripping after obviously having hiked some distance in the rain or you can wonder why your friend happens to be pushing his bike along, instead of riding it, with two flat tires, but you cannot wonder about both at the same time: the one explains the other fully.

On the other hand, is it unusual to mention the carrying of the cross? You say that you have faith that most such narratives do not mention this; but do you have evidence? How many such narratives have you compared? Chariton, at least, mentions it in Callirhoe 4.2:

2) General procedure

As Wikipedia indicates the general procedure was for the condemned to carry the stake. Was Jesus unable to carry the stake or did he refuse (what would they do if he refused?)? "Mark" doesn't say explicitly. "Mark" does say that Jesus was scourged (whipped) but seriously injuring would go against the primary purpose of crucifying which was slow, lengthy, helpless suffering in public. "Mark" does say that Pilate was surprised Jesus died so quickly. I guess Pilate would have known his condition in his presence. Maybe Jesus had a weak heart.

Sure, maybe. The problem here is certainly not figuring out a reason why the condemned might not have been physically able to bear his own patibulum; there is an embarrassment of possible reasons.

3) Specific selection of Simon

The sense of "Mark" is that the crucifixion party is going out and Simon is coming in. If someone needed to carry the stake, why not select someone or someone's that was going there anyway?

Turn the question around: why select someone going there anyway? The soldiers would have had no care in the world for making sure the forced action did not inconvenience somebody too terribly much.

4) Timing of selection

"Mark" indicates that the decision to force Simon was made on the way to crucifixion (unless this Simon's usual path to the city went through the Praetorium). Quite a coincidence that at this exact moment they decided that Jesus would/could not carry the stake.

I honestly do not understand what you are finding coincidental here. What is coincidental about Jesus being rendered unable to carry the cross at roughly the same moment a random passerby happens to be walking along? The difficulty, such as it is, would have been in selecting which passerby to conscript, not in trying to find one at all. This was not the wilderness; this was Jerusalem at Passover time, by all accounts. The density of people must have been stifling.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:On the other hand, is it unusual to mention the carrying of the cross? You say that you have faith that most such narratives do not mention this; but do you have evidence? How many such narratives have you compared? Chariton, at least, mentions it in Callirhoe 4.2:

They were duly brought out, chained together at foot and neck, each carrying his own cross.

But the narrative continues "The executioners added this grim public spectacle to the requisite penalty as a deterrent to others so minded." It is saying that making them carry their own stake was an added touch to scare the other slaves of the estate who were viewing the execution not to attempt a breakout especially if it involves killing someone in the process.

So, even if Jesus is required to carry his own stake, say because the Roman executioners believed he deserved it, how is mentioning the name and family of the man pressed into service to carry it for him relevant to the intent of the executioners, that is, to deter similar acts that occasioned Jesus' execution? There is more not said here than said. Is Simon of Cyrene thought to be implicated by association? Were his sons involved in whatever series of events that brought about Jesus' death sentence, so that he should also be shamed along with Jesus and the two who were crucified with him? Maybe the other two were his sons?

Possibilities are endless, and as a result, all of them are irrelevant.

DCH