Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:Another suggestion for the omission by Matthew and Luke, perhaps, is that gMark is of a substantially different genre than our canonical gMatthew and gLuke (which are substantially different with their presentation of infancy narratives, expansive sayings material, etc.)....

I have been wondering whether Mark might be, as at least two of the patristic sources seem to claim, a first draft (so to speak, to use a modern term) that never got fleshed out in quite the way most readers and writers of the era were accustomed, and then Matthew and Luke each took separate pains to turn it into a more finished work (or, more accurately, to use it as a major basis of their own more finished work). In this case, perhaps Mark was leaning toward a genre, but not fully there, as it were. A lot of Marcan rough spots and mysteries seem to get ironed out in Matthew and Luke, some of which you identify here. (I leave open whether Matthew and Luke correctly identified the most fitting Marcan genre.)

Ben.

Peter Kirby wrote:. It might just mean they stumped Matthew and Luke as much as they stump us.

Great point.

I could add that to the combination of other ideas mentioned, and not be able to refute one, or even want to.

Ben C. Smith wrote: I have been wondering whether Mark might be, as at least two of the patristic sources seem to claim, a first draft (so to speak, to use a modern term) that never got fleshed out in quite the way most readers and writers of the era were accustomed, and then Matthew and Luke each took separate pains to turn it into a more finished work (or, more accurately, to use it as a major basis of their own more finished work).

I think it was finished as it was going to get less the ending. It was a well done little story, even if by a less skilled author.

If the Christology was not so different, from the others I would agree. Not only that that, each parallels different people and text of importance. There is to much diversity between the 3.

The time difference between the two also reflects the growing movement, that was still accreting mythology at a rapid pace.

Peter Kirby wrote:Another suggestion for the omission by Matthew and Luke, perhaps, is that gMark is of a substantially different genre than our canonical gMatthew and gLuke (which are substantially different with their presentation of infancy narratives, expansive sayings material, etc.), which might be dated anywhere from 10 to 70 years later (70 CE + 70 years = 140 CE, which is within the range of possibility), whose authors could not perceive the meaning of the second identifier for this Simon in gMark and had no other use for it, thus dropping it on that account.

I've mentioned before Lemche's current post at Bible & Interpretation where he discusses the nature of "history" writing in the ancient world and a key point of his applies here:

The ancient historiographer possessed none of the critical tools of modern historians. History in our sense of the word is a newcomer to our civilization and hardly understood outside it. It may be illustrated by the following quotation from one of the founding fathers of biblical criticism, Richard Simon:

“Moreover, those same prophets that one can call public scribes to distinguish them from other private writers, had the freedom to create compilations of ancient documents that were preserved in the archives of the republic [of the Hebrews], and to give these same documents a new shape, adding or taking away what they judged necessary to be treated in this way. Thanks to this principle, one will find solid grounds to justify the additions and changes that are found in these sacred books, without diminishing their authority for this reason since the authors of these additions or changes were true prophets led by the Spirit of God. Therefore the changes that they may have introduced into the ancient documents will have the same authority as the rest of the text of the Bible.” (Simon 1679)

In spite of his critical attitude to the biblical text, Simon was still embedded in past historiography where the story had to be adjusted to get the message through. The meaning is obvious: History was, as late as the 17th century, the teacher of life as expressed by Cicero, magistra vitae,[5] and for that reason it was more important to present history as this teacher than to care about historical exactitude. We find this attitude everywhere in classical historiography. . . .

. . . . .

When modern historians desperately try to extract historical information from whatever ancient document in their possession, they are led by modern concerns, not ancient ones, concerns there were foreign to the people who put their historiography together not only to entertain their contemporaries but certainly also to instruct them about the good and bad aspects of life.

Lemche, as I understand him, is advising us to give preference to the view that an ancient author included or excluded data fundamentally because of its didactic value. If it was of theological use it was included, if not, it was excluded. (Keep in mind that both Mark and Matthew make a point of "recording" the action of an unnamed/unidentified woman who would be "remembered" for all time.)

In line with Lemche's advice one would conclude that Matthew and Luke omitted A&R because they served no theological function. Simon of Cyrene alone did.

By the same token Mark did not include them because of a wink-wink to some buddies in his audience (how many instances do we have of this sort of activity in ancient literary/theological works?) but because they contributed to some theological purpose now lost to us.

To "try to extract historical information" from Mark's narrative is to be "led by modern concerns, not ancient ones." (That's not the same as saying it is impossible to extract historical information from ancient texts but it does mean we need always to be aware that we are looking for something that was not the primary interest of the authors.)

Simon for Mark was a "three-fold" identity that Matthew and Luke rejected and the meaning of which is now lost to us.

(1) If Mark had a high evaluation of Paul (evinced by shared thought)
(2) and if Mark had a high evaluation of Simon the Cyrenian (evinced by being the one to 'take up his cross and follow me')
(3) and if Mark has a theme of the uncomprehending disciples (Peter, James, John, Judas) giving way to disciples that comprehend (Simon the Cyrenian at 15:21, Joseph of Arimathea at 15:43, the woman at Bethany at 14:9, and the young man at 16:5)
(4) and if Mark sees the reversal taking place at the cursing of the fig tree at 11:21, where people are judged for bearing fruit (or multiplying as in the parable in 4:20 or in the signs of 6:43 and 8:23) and not for being sons of Abraham or a son of David (rejected at 12:35)
(5) and if the references to progeny are a way of referring to that fruit being born, to multiplication
(6) and if the reference here means that Alexander and Rufus were people living near the author in time and space and belief
(7) and if there were people who took pride in being 'brothers' who were baptized into fictive kinship 'of Paul'
(8) and if drawing attention to a connection with Paul gave you the mantle of his authority
(9) and if Paul could be believed to have known the lord in person and witnessed Christ crucified as interpreters down the centuries have read his letters
(10) and if Paul can actually speak of being 'crucified' himself, along with Christ (Gal 2:20), as 'we' are for Pauline thought (Rom 6:6)
(11) and if Simon Magus can claim to have had the spirit of Christ and thus closely identify himself with Christ (Irenaeus)
(12) and if Paul can even sometimes be identified with this Simon (Pseudoclementines)
(13) and if some traditions can claim that Simon was 'crucified', just as Paul claims to be and stresses for followers of Christ
(14) and if Paul is the ideal representative of someone who gets Jesus even though those first called had not understood him
(15) and if Romans 16 can actually try to bring Rufus into an official letter of Paul, or was written by Paul
(16) then, accordingly, it is plausible that the 'Simon' here refers to Paul
(17) and it is plausible that his 'sons' are actual spiritual sons of Paul, inducted into the faith as 'brothers' by Paul, for whom the church in Rom 16:13, using later language, was 'mother' to them both (preserving the fictive kinship relation perceived in Mark or known otherwise)

Posted from my phone. Citations from memory, can write this up pretty another time.

Which brings us back to Simon Magus being Paul?

Peter Kirby wrote:(13) and if some traditions can claim that Simon was 'crucified', just as Paul claims to be
(14) and if Paul is the ideal representative of someone who gets Jesus even though those first called had not understood him

...and if the apostle Paul was really, in some sense, pressed into the service of the cross by a vision (Damascus road or otherwise), then would this perhaps go some way toward explaining why Mark did not have Simon Cyrenian volunteer to take up the cross as Mark 8.34 would have it? What has always bothered me about schemes that link Simon Cyrenian to pick up your cross and follow me is that Simon Cyrenian really does neither in the text; he is forced to carry the cross, and the text does not say that he followed Jesus, whether literally (on the road to Golgotha) or spiritually (becoming a believer or what have you). If Simon equals Paul, and if Paul was converted almost forcibly by a vision, then maybe it makes more sense.

Or maybe I lack sleep. Not sure.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:I point out with interest that in the Greek Tragedy structure of GMark, the classic Recognition Scene of GMark, the Transfiguration, separates the story from Teaching & Healing Ministry to Passion. During the Teaching & Healing Ministry names are presented in traditional form, son of so and so. During the Passion the names are presented in unorthodox fashion (reversed), "father/mother of so and so", for the supposed "followers" of Jesus during the Passion....

What is the force of supposed followers here? If the transfiguration scene in Mark 9 is the dividing line, then why are the sons of Zebedee still identified in the traditional way in Mark 10.35? Are you saying that James and John are not supposed followers? Or what exactly?

JW:
I rather like the way you're talking, astute and sincere, suddenly your tragic story, gets me right here.

James and John are old Testament school, they've already been presented. Still presented as sons of a father and not fathers of anyone. I guess they didn't bear any fruit. Go fig yer tree.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

"Mark" (author) is even so kind as to throw in a related Parable so that those who can see can hear with the in between story of David/Christ. In the Teaching & Healing Ministry Jesus is the son of David but in the Passion Jesus is the Lord of David.

That makes sense of a kind, but in what way, if any, does the whole son of David / Lord of David connect with what you are saying about the old son of so-and-so and the new parent of so-and-so stuff in Mark?

JW:
"That makes sense of a kind, but". Asked and answered. Note that in the Teaching Ministry Jesus also kind of makes a big deal about literal verses figurative families. Think Paul.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Further still, since both fathers and mothers on the one hand and children on the other are part of the negated human relationships in Mark 10.29-30, how is parent of so-and-so supposed to be or sound or come across as part of the new?

JW:
Figuratively it's more likely you are a son of God and a father of sons according to:

"as ye know how we [dealt with] each one of you, as a father with his own children, exhorting you, and encouraging [you], and testifying,"

the one who only preached him crucified.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

I go beyond Kelber with the above but in his related explanation in his classic... he points out in general the balanced structure of GMark. The water represents the "divide" between Jew and Gentile. Jesus' supposed trips are balanced between Jew and Gentile. As it relates to the above, Jesus' pericopes are also balanced between male and female. Think Paul. Note with interest that in the above chart there is one father of so and so and one mother of so and so.

One mother alone against one father and four sons, though. Why not go the whole way and balance the sexes completely? Is that just too radical even for Mark?

JW:
Huh?:

Simon (of Cyrene), father of Alexander and Rufus
Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses

What you taking bout Willis?

Also, as I've mentioned before (to you), all the supposed names of Jesus' family:

Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?

are mentioned prominently in the Passion (I especially like Peter being reverted back to "Simon") and the author even seems to be trying to avoid naming other characters in the Passion, "the woman" who will never be forgotten, a certain young man, the high priest, a maid of the high priest, the centurion and a young man. The other few names invoked, Pilate, Alexander and Rufus I can find in Paul/Fake Paul, except for BarAbbas (I would guess you accept that "BarAbbas" looks contrived). it looks to me that in general "Mark" (author) has intentionally not named those who per narrative had a positive response to Jesus. This would seem to go against PK's suggestion that Alexander and Rufus are invoked by name because they were known to "Mark's" audience as in general "Mark" gives names to those who test (so to speak) negative to Jesus and withholds names for those who test positive for Jesus.

And now a question for you Ben. Do you accept that "Mark" had a primary theme of discrediting the supposed disciples as proper witnesses to Jesus?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Or Simon of C "takes up 'his' cross in the same sense the two thieves crucified with Jesus share the baptism of Jesus and sit in the glory promised to James and John. Joseph of Arimathea and the two Marys imitate the disciples of John in their care for the corpse of Jesus failing to understand Jesus is not like John and had already been anointed for his burial.

In other words the names at the end are as uncomprehending as any of those in the earlier part of the gospel. They are unaware of what they are really doing or being compelled to act out.

neilgodfrey wrote:Which brings us back to Simon Magus being Paul?

I'm not sure what all goes into that verb (that would depend on what the definition of 'is', is)...

...but I'd at least countenance that the name of Paul (his semitic name, as his other name is indeed Paulus) may have actually been Simon.

Perhaps further that some of the traditions about a "Simon Magus" or "Simon the Samaritan" or "Simon and Cerinthus" or "Simon and Cleobius" or 'Simon, who taught Cerdo, who taught Marcion' or 'Simon, who taught Marcion' (or indeed "Simon the Cyrenian") point to this Simon (certainly, at the very least, some do, no matter what someone's position is). I'd also mention again that we always feel obliged to qualify the name of "Simon" as if it were some minor character in the grand scheme of things, not capable of having a single name stand for him, but that the sources do not always feel that way.

I'd finally mention that if Marcion claims that Paul was his teacher, whether directly or indirectly by one remove (cf. Clement of Alexandria), and if the heresiologists claim that Simon was his teacher, whether directly or indirectly by one remove, it is completely natural to understand how Paul has split into two (Marcion was a huge threat to the catholic church's agenda, and Simon/Paul was Marcion's ammunition). It is also completely natural to understand how the relationship between Marcion and Paul could be further obscured by Acts by selecting a false semitic name for Paul (and not even trying hard--"Saul"? no, really... we suspect nothing because we're used to people using phonetically similar names in different languages, but it wasn't that common back then, as I personally can't remember a single such example but know several variant examples).