Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Technically speaking, I have made three suggestions so far:

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p?f=3&t=45
(1) Alexander and Rufus were literal sons of a random actual guy named Simon, the Cyrenian, who carried the crossbeam for Jesus, and these sons (or one of them) were nearby Mark in location and time and beliefs (i.e., the orthodox view). [a 'positive' evaluation]

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1356
(2) Alexander and Rufus were literal sons of an actual guy named Simon (called 'the Cyrenian' for the revolutionary overtones of it shortly after AD 73), the actual son (slain along with his brother James in the mid-1st century) of the actual Judas the Galilean. The names Alexander and Rufus were thus the (non-semitic) second names and/or code names of two rebels in the First Jewish Revolt, known by way of fame in the time period. [a 'negative' evaluation]

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =60#p34270
(3) Alexander and Rufus were metaphorical sons of an actual guy named Simon (i.e. Paul), an idea developed in this thread. [a 'positive' evaluation]

Two of these options (1 and 3) would go against the grain of your suggestion quoted above, while one of them (2) would cut along with it.

On the contrary, however, I say that the reference to Simon the Cyrenian (almost) must be positive because of its close correspondence to this statement made by Jesus about those who want to be his followers:

Mark 8:34
He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

Mark 15:21
And they compelled a passerby, Simon Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross.

I don't make much of the difference supposed to be found here between 'take up' and 'compelled', because the parallel is actually between 'take up' (ἀράτω [from αἴρω]) and 'to carry' (ἄρῃ [from αἴρω]) the 'cross' (σταυρὸν), and the correspondence is thus very close to the point of undeniability.

I would thus argue against myself (in the second version of my suggestion), and likewise thus against you, by saying that the reference practically must be positive and that any interpretation of the reference must countenance that. The very specificity of this character fulfilling this one particular requirement of Jesus trumps all other considerations. (This had always been something that really bothered me with the second suggestion, and I'm thus glad to drop it, even if it leaves 'the Cyrenian' bit apparently unmotivated [unless it's motivated very simply... was Paul a Cyrenian? he doesn't say].)

The argument against is far too subtle and indeed speculative. I'd suggest that Simon the Cyrenian is one who breaks the pattern (and given the very small number of examples, it's invalid to form a very strong general rule that would controvert this). I'd also suggest that Joseph of Arimathea (yes, I am still a subscriber to the "excellent-disciple-town" pun here) is another who breaks the pattern.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

I am not talking only about state of completion here; I am referring to the ancient stages of book production. Books tended to be produced in at least two stages, the first of which was υπομνηματα. A book at this stage might all be there, as it were, or might not all be there (it might lack stuff the finished product ends up having). The distinguishing feature of this stage is that it has not yet been polished, not yet been given beauty and ταξις, order (in the ancient sense), and fine expression. One of the patristic writers explicitly calls Mark υπομνηματα, while another says that Mark was written ου μεντοι ταξει (without order). Books which were still at the stage of being υπομνηματα were often the kind that were handed out to friends and acquaintances and colleagues upon request (as I mentioned with Galen), and one of the patristic writers (Clement of Alexandria, I believe) says this very thing explicitly about Mark, that he handed it out upon request.

I think a book might even be extremely well-written, but still be classified as belonging to the initial stage of book production. I interpret Suetonius, Life of Caesar 56, along the lines of the stages of book production. According to Suetonius, Cicero complained about the memoirs of Caesar that, though he intended them as raw material [stage 1: υπομνηματα] for others to draw on [stage 2: finished memoir], and then still others to write histories from [sort of another, 3rd stage], they were so well-written that no sane writer would dare try to improve them. I may be wrong on the exact relation of stages, but it seems clear that a draft intended to be edited and polished up somehow later could turn out to be really good on its own merits already. So, what I am saying is that, even if you see Mark as a well done little story, that does not disqualify it from belonging at that first stage of book production.

I am pressed for time right now, but if it is of interest to you I can track down the patristic and other passages I am referring to later.

Cheers.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

And Clement of Alexandria explicitly refers to this two stage process with respect to Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

Joe, I will try to answer the rest of your points later, but let us try to get this one misunderstanding out of the way first. You said:

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.

I said that in the above chart there was one mother and one father (as you agree), but four sons. You said huh? and got all seventies about it, but I am just reading the chart: there is one woman on the chart, but five men. I asked why Mark did not go the whole way and balance the sexes completely if that was his point (mother and two daughters, father and two sons, perhaps; or mix it up some other way that comes out to 3 to 3 on the chart, instead of 5 to 1). Was that just too radical a move for Mark to make?

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

I agree with the relevance of the patristic citations (about υπομνηματα), but only to a point. Ex hypothesi (according to the suggestion that Mark had purposes that Matthew and Luke did not understand), the patristic authors (on account of them likewise lacking understanding) were incorrect about the unfinished or notebook character ascribed to the Gospel of Mark.

It may be possible to support the hypothesis from the internal evidence.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't make much of the difference supposed to be found here between 'take up' and 'compelled', because the parallel is actually between 'take up' (ἀράτω [from αἴρω]) and 'to carry' (ἄρῃ [from αἴρω]) the 'cross' (σταυρὸν), and the correspondence is thus very close to the point of undeniability.

I would thus argue against myself (in the second version of my suggestion), and likewise thus against you, by saying that the reference practically must be positive and that any interpretation of the reference must countenance that. The very specificity of this character fulfilling this one particular requirement of Jesus trumps all other considerations.

The verbs are highly compatible; the concept is what is opposite. The context of the saying is to deny yourself and take up the cross, obviously voluntarily. The context of Simon taking up the cross is one of compulsion, obviously quite involuntarily.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

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.

Technically speaking, I have made three suggestions so far:

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p?f=3&t=45
(1) Alexander and Rufus were literal sons of a random actual guy named Simon, the Cyrenian, who carried the crossbeam for Jesus, and these sons (or one of them) were nearby Mark in location and time and beliefs (i.e., the orthodox view). [a 'positive' evaluation]

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1356
(2) Alexander and Rufus were literal sons of an actual guy named Simon (called 'the Cyrenian' for the revolutionary overtones of it shortly after AD 73), the actual son (slain along with his brother James in the mid-1st century) of the actual Judas the Galilean. The names Alexander and Rufus were thus the (non-semitic) second names and/or code names of two rebels in the First Jewish Revolt, known by way of fame in the time period. [a 'negative' evaluation]

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =60#p34270
(3) Alexander and Rufus were metaphorical sons of an actual guy named Simon (i.e. Paul), an idea developed in this thread. [a 'positive' evaluation]

Two of these options (1 and 3) would go against the grain of your suggestion quoted above, while one of them (2) would cut along with it.

On the contrary, however, I say that the reference to Simon the Cyrenian (almost) must be positive because of its close correspondence to this statement made by Jesus about those who want to be his followers:

Mark 8:34
He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

Mark 15:21
And they compelled a passerby, Simon Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross.

JW:

Peter, get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

"Mark" (author) has a primary theme that the figurative/spiritual (meaning) is what is important and to highlight this it is contrasted with the physical/literal (meaning). In "Mark's" vision, if you are doing the physical, than you are not doing the figurative and that is a negative. Simon Cyrenian is physically/literally taking up and carrying Jesus' cross but he is not doing it figuratively/spiritually. If all you had to go on was GMark would you have any reason to think Simon Cyrenian became a follower of Jesus? Of course not. Same for J of A, same for the two bandits, same for all of Jesus' disciples who literally drank from his cup. I have faith that this is the explanation Neil is fumbling for.

I may have to start referring to you here as "Simon". I confess though that in the big picture I think you are fine, it's my younger brother I am worried about. I'll add to all the evidence here that in general "Mark's" presentation of names is contrived by also pointing out that "Mark's" Jesus' brothers:

James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon

reminds this one of the most famous brothers in The Jewish Bible with Joseph, Judas and Simon being perhaps the most famous of the sons of Jacob. The odd son of man out is "James" yet again I can find "James" in Paul id'ed as "The brother of the Lord".


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Peter Kirby]

I don't make much of the difference supposed to be found here between 'take up' and 'compelled', because the parallel is actually between 'take up' (ἀράτω [from αἴρω]) and 'to carry' (ἄρῃ [from αἴρω]) the 'cross' (σταυρὸν), and the correspondence is thus very close to the point of undeniability.

I would thus argue against myself (in the second version of my suggestion), and likewise thus against you, by saying that the reference practically must be positive and that any interpretation of the reference must countenance that. The very specificity of this character fulfilling this one particular requirement of Jesus trumps all other considerations.

The verbs are highly compatible; the concept is what is opposite. The context of the saying is to deny yourself and take up the cross, obviously voluntarily. The context of Simon taking up the cross is one of compulsion, obviously quite involuntarily.

But what conclusion do we draw from this? (And is this apparently opposite concept the central concept, 'the concept', here, in the context of the parallel between the saying earlier and the narrative later? Assuming that would be, practically speaking, to assume what needs to be proven.)

The conclusion that I draw from this is that it makes more sense in the context of the narrative (of the Roman crucifixion, should we imagine that volunteers could dictate who carries anything?) to say it one way and that it makes more sense in the context of the saying (earlier) to say it another way, in a more general and noble fashion. There is way, way, way, way too much importance attached to the distinction by some, who want to exclude the saying as applying (and applying chiefly) to this Simon. It's just as Huller said--the saying is a "Chekhov's gun" when we find that there is one man who took up the cross of Jesus and followed (literally--also suggested non-literally by the existence of his sons? is that part of why they are named?) him. The statements are to be read together.

(Moreover, since when do random passersby get pressed into carrying the crossbeam for someone else? This is an important point, if someone were to develop it, that should be relevant to the overall purpose of determining whether this story were historical or not. And if it were not historical, then that has knock-on effects for the reading of the Gospel of Mark here.)

I already anticipated this kind of reply, but I did not really expect anyone making it in full seriousness (perhaps you are not making it in full seriousness but merely suggesting that I have not anticipated it or reckoned it) after seeing even just the few facts I mentioned.

[Peter Kirby]

If all you had to go on was GMark would you have any reason to think Simon Cyrenian became a follower of Jesus? Of course not. Same for J of A

I don't agree, particularly if we are talking not about what I have to go on but what the first readers of Mark had to go on (knowledge of Greek, of the historical context, and of particular names, possibly including some or all of Simon the Cyrenian, Rufus, and Alexander). This is indeed at the heart of everything we've been discussing in this thread.

same for the two bandits, same for all of Jesus' disciples who literally drank from his cup.

With this, I do agree.

[neilgodfrey]

I find myself with Joe here. As for what the first readers had to go on are we not are overlooking Lemche's advice.

Besides, are our first readers Basilideans or Carpocratians? In Rome or in Antioch or in Alexandria? Living 70 or 90 or 130 CE? If Cyrene was associated with rebellion and slaughter of Jews do not Simon's offspring take on a totally different "obvious" meaning?