Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[neilgodfrey]

Mark plays with names. Recall Paula Fredriksen's observation on his list of Jesus' brothers:

It’s a little like naming a string of Olsons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin: the names themselves convey a close identification with the nation’s foundational past. (Jesus of Nazareth, p.240)

[Secret Alias]

Peter's right. Maybe I am missing something. There are other possibilities but we are always weighing more and less likely probabilities in history. It is more likely that the 'sons' of Simon were being identified as Christians by the editor or author than any other possibility IMO

[Peter Kirby]

I find myself with Joe here.

About what? About Simon the Cyrenian being presented as a negative example?

As for what the first readers had to go on are we not are overlooking Lemche's advice.

I have not suggested anything against the idea that the mention of the names contributed to a purpose. I'd suggest that the mention does. These concepts are not necessarily at odds. What we're interested in, I suppose, is what that purpose might have been. I agree it's not enough to say that the Gospel of Mark's author would have included a nod to Rufus and Alexander merely if they were people known to him nearby. There must also be a purpose.

I've suggested one or more that are possible, in the Simon=Paul context, that (a) they showed the spiritual offspring of Simon, thus forming part of the general reversal we see (which you have noted) where people are identified by their offspring, and/or (b) they showed powerfully the authoritative connection that these people had to an important person Simon, a source of authority better than the inferior befuddled disciples who had fled, and/or (c) they had the very prosaic function of further identifying Simon, which is how the text seems to present it on the surface anyway.

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?

Yes, of course. What was 'obvious' to the first readers is not the same as what we know about what may have been 'obvious' to the first readers, since we don't know very much. (That still does not mean, obviously, that there was nothing 'obvious' to the first readers or that the concept of some things being 'obvious' or 'understood' is an unhelpful one for analysis of the historical possibilities. To assume that would be as ahistorical as to assume that they had our concerns.)

[Secret Alias]

Derrett has proposed a different understanding of “Cyrene”.58 Jewish traditions regarding the patriarchs elaborate on the role of Simeon, Joseph's elder brother, who was the most eager to have Joseph killed. With a fairly complicated argument regarding variations of the Hebrew root קרה he proposes that Jews might have detected a pun in Luke's use of the word “Cyrene” and associated it with one who “carried a beam”. Derrett suggests that a Derrett suggests that a number of other names from the Passion Narrative had similar Haggadic associations, such as “Judas”, “Iscariot”, “Joseph” and “Arimathea" https://books.google.com/books?id=dlv4- ... 22&f=false

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

I do not think I was clear. What I mean is that I do not think that Simon is offered up as a model for taking up the cross as per the saying. Whether he is an antitype to it in some way is a different matter. I am not exactly sure why the evaluation of Simon would have to be either positive or negative, but I guess I am saying that it is more likely to be negative or neutral than positive. (I am not sure the positive-negative terminology is helpful, though, especially since you labelled something as positive in your threefold list that I would have called neutral.)

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.

Chekhov's gun is a principle that gains much force precisely from the fact that so many authors do not abide by it, nor necessarily even aspire to it. How do we know that Mark did aspire to it? (I am not saying that he did not; I am asking how we would demonstrate it.)

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

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

Peter's right. Maybe I am missing something. There are other possibilities but we are always weighing more and less likely probabilities in history. It is more likely that the 'sons' of Simon were being identified as Christians by the editor or author than any other possibility IMO

Is everyone talking about the same person(s), or is everyone talking right past each other? Do Simon and his sons have to stand or fall together with respect to having joined the cult?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

How do we know that Mark did aspire to it?

Because one billion people today developed from a basic literary paradigm that Jesus announced the coming of another. Islam's interpretation of Jesus's motives from gospel passages in this way but it clearly dates back to older forms of Christianity - older even than Manichaeanism which develops along a similar principle. For instance 'Are you the one to come or should we look for another' etc. most famously the Marcionite belief (attested in the Acts of Archelaus from the Marcionite center of Osroene) that when Jesus said 'paraclete' he meant another person who would be a second Jesus. The heretics understood this to mean Paul. But clearly the followers of Simon applied it to Simon.

Our tradition almost absurdly denies this possibility - they deny that Jesus baptized another (how could Christian baptism NOT have began with Jesus it's mind boggling in its insipidness) , established a chosen disciple, that Jesus set up a scenario where he would miraculously escape crucifixion by trading places with him - all elements of the original Christian interpretation of the gospel IMO. In this and in most other cases Islam preserves the original Christian understanding.

[neilgodfrey]

I find myself with Joe here.

About what? About Simon the Cyrenian being presented as a negative example?

Yes. Simon of C, Joseph of A, Mary, Mary and Salone all playing negative/faithless roles.

Fwiw: Notice that Mark names the two sons of Mary at the end, too -- Joses and James. (If indeed this is the same Mary or even the mother of Jesus.)

Matthew keeps Mary but drops the names of her sons.

[Secret Alias]

No famous person in the history of the world accomplished less than Jesus. Tom Cruise accomplished more than Jesus - and that's reading the gospels as they are presented to us. Something not right. If you were making up a story about a man who became god you'd expect some accomplishment to back that up - even if it is a complete boldface lie. Instead, the only clue we have is that Jesus passes on the torch to someone who will come after him - variously defined ('the true disciple,' 'another,' 'the one who will come after me' and these are spread out across all four gospels). Very strange.

[Ben C. Smith]

Fwiw: Notice that Mark names the two sons of Mary at the end, too -- Joses and James. (If indeed this is the same Mary or even the mother of Jesus.)

Matthew keeps Mary but drops the names of her sons.

Matthew names the two sons in 27.56.

Ben.