Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I remember that here I heard the first time from prof Price the idea of a Basilides author of proto-Mark:


http://www.truthbeknown.com/new-testament.html

When I read the idea the first time, it seemed to be fool in my view. Now I know the reason, credit being given to Rufus and Alexander.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:00 pm The point is that Alexander and Rufus are mentioned in the Acts of Peter and Andrew, in company of Peter and Glaukias. Now, Glaukias was claimed by Basilides as a reporter of what happened about the replacement of Jesus with Simon on the cross.

What is the reference for this specific detail? I have this much already:

If you want to think otherwise, then you should say me why Alexander and Rufus are in Mark but not in Matthew and Luke.

On the face of it, given that people are not generally identified by their sons or other descendants, the author of this verse in Mark presumed his readers would know who Alexander and Rufus were (just as Ruth 4.17, which identifies Obed by his grandson David, presumes that readers will know who David is). If Matthew and Luke could not presume the same, then it makes sense for them to drop that bit.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:12 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:00 pm The point is that Alexander and Rufus are mentioned in the Acts of Peter and Andrew, in company of Peter and Glaukias. Now, Glaukias was claimed by Basilides as a reporter of what happened about the replacement of Jesus with Simon on the cross.

What is the reference for this specific detail? I have this much already:

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 7.17: For it does not require many words to show that the human assemblies which [the heretics] held were posterior to the catholic church. For the teaching of our Lord at his advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Hadrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims, as they boast, Glaucias the interpreter of Peter for his master. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter. Such being the case, it is evident from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the church that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions, and falsified.

Exactly. We can infer easily that, according to Basilides, they were Alexander and Rufus who informed Peter (about the death of their father in the place of Jesus), who informed Glaukias, who informed who informed Basilides.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:12 am

If you want to think otherwise, then you should say me why Alexander and Rufus are in Mark but not in Matthew and Luke.

On the face of it, given that people are not generally identified by their sons or other descendants, the author of this verse in Mark presumed his readers would know who Alexander and Rufus were (just as Ruth 4.17, which identifies Obed by his grandson David, presumes that readers will know who David is)

Note that this holds true also in a Basilides's universe, as I have explained above. Basilides's "Apostolic Succession" as reconstructed above was designed to explain how the Basilides's followers gained that esoteric knowledge via their two "Apostles" Alexander and Rufus.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:12 am If Matthew and Luke could not presume the same, then it makes sense for them to drop that bit.

no, I disagree strongly here. In terms of living presumed testimonia, the rule here would be: melius abundare quam deficere. Because, just as yourself have just claimed above, the function of Alexander and Rufus was EVIDENTLY to give testimony to something.
A Papias would have accepted immediately these two guys as two living witnesses, even if they were totally unknown for him. Since Papias himself claims that he prefers a lot to collect oral witnesses as opposed to books.

Even if Luke and Matthew had ignored totally who Alexander and Rufus were, just as we ignore them, differently from us, Matthew and Luke would have followed much more probably the example of Papias: in their mind, it was decisively better to have two witnesses in addition rather than to have two witnesses in less. And you Ben are totally wrong if you want to persuade me of the contrary, in this case. These people had absolute need of presumed (even if only presumed) witnesses (even only nominally witnesses as opposed to factual witnesses)... ...and who are you to deny them that extreme need of brandishing presumed witnesses????

Hence the onus probandi is on you, Ben, if you mean to prove that Luke and Matthew omitted Alexander and Rufus because they didn't need witnesses (and these two were CLEARLY witnesses: there is not secret here) not known by them. Or do you believe that Papias knew personally (sic) any author of the his oral tradition? Did he know who told him about the absurd death of Judas?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:21 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:12 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:00 pm The point is that Alexander and Rufus are mentioned in the Acts of Peter and Andrew, in company of Peter and Glaukias. Now, Glaukias was claimed by Basilides as a reporter of what happened about the replacement of Jesus with Simon on the cross.

What is the reference for this specific detail? I have this much already:

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 7.17: For it does not require many words to show that the human assemblies which [the heretics] held were posterior to the catholic church. For the teaching of our Lord at his advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Hadrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims, as they boast, Glaucias the interpreter of Peter for his master. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter. Such being the case, it is evident from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the church that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions, and falsified.

Exactly. We can infer easily that, according to Basilides, they were Alexander and Rufus who informed Peter (about the death of their father in the place of Jesus), who informed Glaukias, who informed who informed Basilides.

How can we infer what you are saying from what Clement says? It looks like magic from my angle. And I really do not want it to look like magic. I would love to be able to glean more about what Basilides and other "heretics" claimed about their respective chains of succession (Glaucias, Theudas, and so on). It would thrill me if you could demonstrate for me that Basilides claimed that Alexander and Rufus are the ones who informed Peter about Simon of Cyrene. But that is not what I am seeing above.

I disagree strongly here. In terms of living presumed testimonia, the rule here would be: melius abundare quam deficere. Because, just as yourself have just claimed above, the function of Alexander and Rufus was EVIDENTLY to give testimony to something.

I made no such claim, nor am I committed to that option in any way. You are overinterpreting me just as you are overinterpreting Clement, drawing inferences where none exist. If you cannot understand me, a modern writer, how can you hope to understand, Clement, an ancient one?

What I said is that the readers of that verse in Mark were presumed to know who those figures are. That is not the same as counting on those figures for testimony, though that is one option, and one that I play around with sometimes in my proposed reconstructions or trajectories.

A Papias would have accepted immediately these two guys as two living witnesses, even if they were totally unknown for him. Since Papias himself claims that he prefers a lot to collect oral witnesses as opposed to books.

We do not know whether Papias mentioned them or did not mention them. All we have of Papias is fragments. If you think you know what Papias wrote or did not write about them, then you are simply wrong, unless you have an actual argument to pull out instead of mere assumptions.

Or do you believe that Papias knew personally (sic) any author of the his oral tradition? Did he know who told him about the absurd death of Judas?

I have made it rather clear in past threads that I do not think Papias even necessarily knew or had met John the elder, much less any of the names from the gospel traditions themselves.

And you Ben are totally wrong if you want to persuade me of the contrary, in this case.

Have it your way, man. You have been proven wrong countless times before for having used these same sorts of hyperassumptions, yet still you return to the same debunked set of interpretive methods.

I look forward to your next genuine insight into the texts at hand; you do have those from time to time, and they, not your bizarre interpretations of them, are what interest me.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:21 amBecause, just as yourself have just claimed above, the function of Alexander and Rufus was EVIDENTLY to give testimony to something.

Heck, I even compared this device (= naming sons or other descendants in the narrative) with the device in Ruth 4.17. Did you really think I was suggesting that the author of Ruth was relying on David for his testimony?? I mean, really??

It would thrill me if you could demonstrate for me that Basilides claimed that Alexander and Rufus are the ones who informed Peter about Simon of Cyrene. But that is not what I am seeing above.

I have simply started from a candid and honest experiment of mind: what if I read Mark as a Basilidian? I see that you are not able or reluctant to do that very banal operation. And this is not speculation. It is logic: who better than the his sons could confirm that the real crucified was just Simon of Cyrene?

The Acts of Andrew and Peter (quoted above) show that Alexander and Rufus saw the Risen Christ. In virtue of that, they were Apostles in their own right for these apocryphal Acts. As apostles, they were commissioned to start a their own Apostolic Succession, even if one not catholic. Note also the coincidence of Cyrene being in Africa as the Egypt of Basilides.

At any case, the mere logic is necessary here, not even the knowledge that Alex and Rufus were Apostles.

Did you really think I was suggesting that the author of Ruth was relying on David for his testimony?? I mean, really??

these your words of surprise surprise really me. Because you are ignoring fatally the great abyssal difference between David and Alex and Rufus:

• There was no churchman who had interest to brandish David as testimony of something.

• There was an entire Great Church (!) who would have had an enormous interest to brandish Alex and Rufus - or, for that matter, even Pilate himself (and it is a fact, only read Acts of Pilate) as PRESUMED witnesses of a Gospel event.

I remember (by memory) here what prof L. K. Noll said about prof Richard Bauckman: he failed to prove the existence of real testimonies, but he was able to prove that in the Gospels there is evidence that their authors wanted brandish these own stories as presumed evidence.

Hence what you are arguing is absurd: that Matthew and Luke ignored Alex and Rufus because they were unknown witnesses to them. But for these people it was better to have an unknown witness than zero witnesses at all. Usually, the ordinary trend is that the number of witnesses increase, not that they decrease, through the time. Why in this case are you considering as a credible possibility that Matthew and Luke omitted two witnesses when Mark had them as witnesses?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:17 amAnd this is not speculation. It is logic: who better than the his sons could confirm that the real crucified was just Simon of Cyrene?

....

Why in this case are you considering as a credible possibility that Matthew and Luke omitted two witnesses when Mark had them as witnesses?

I already answered these questions. You are just too wrapped up in your own hypothesis to comprehend the answer.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:45 am What I said is that the readers of that verse in Mark were presumed to know who those figures are. That is not the same as counting on those figures for testimony, though that is one option, and one that I play around with sometimes in my proposed reconstructions or trajectories.

In terms of language for only insiders, the insiders (i.e. Basilides) would have known that they were not real witnesses, but fictitous invented witnesses meant to work as revealers of the fact that Simon was crucified.

I have made it rather clear in past threads that I do not think Papias even necessarily knew or had met John the elder, much less any of the names from the gospel traditions themselves.

hence, according to the possibility raised by you about Matthew and Luke, and considered by you as credible alternative explanation (as opposed to the my explanation) of the omission of Alex and Rufus in Matthew and Luke, if only Papias had reasoned as the your presumed Matthew and Luke, then Papias would have omitted any mention of John the elder since Papias didn't know or met that guy.
I disagree here.

Guiseppe, I like your exploration of the possibilities behind "Mark's" use of Alexander and Rufus and think your general line of thought does better explain "Matthew's" omission of the names. (The standard claim that Matthew's readers didn't know them is ad hoc and falls apart when one pauses to think through what would be involved in Matthew's use of Mark and his interest in rewriting it and the audiences we would expect in each case.)

But have you considered the broader "book-end" pattern in the Gospel of Mark. As per common literary style of the day Mark repeats or inverts opening motifs at the end of his book. Example, in the early chapters certain names are identified by their parents, while in the latter chapters we find the reverse, certain names are identified by their offspring. If Alexander and Rufus have a particular function, could we not expect other sons mentioned as identifiers in those closing chapters also to have a comparable function? It's just an exploratory question, nothing more.

I would be cautious about being too emphatic about logical inferences being raised to levels of fact; inferences can be very logical but still they remain inferences. Another set of starting points can open up a different train of just as valid logic yet lead to quite different scenarios. Bob Price is careful not to be dogmatic about his suggestions that Basilides was behind the Gospel of Mark.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:35 pm Guiseppe,

my name is Giuseppe not Guiseppe. Please don't repeat a similar Trump's error.

Bob Price is careful not to be dogmatic about his suggestions that Basilides was behind the Gospel of Mark.

Mark was secretary of Paul according to Papias. But according to Basilides, Glaukias was secretary of Paul. If Basilides claimed that he knew about the fate of the Cyrenaic from Glaukias, then Mark would have left Alexander and Rufus (even if he knew that Alexander and Rufus were who informed Glaukias, according to Basilides) in the his effort to supplant the rival (in the his role) tradition who dated back to Glaukias.

A clue in this sense comes from Luke's version of the episode, paradoxically more similar to the original than Mark's version :


(Luke 23:26)

Compare it with Mark 15:21:


Note the difference: Mark doesn't make it explicit that the Cyrenaic is going precisely behind Jesus. Luke does it explicit that the Cyrenaic goes behind Jesus. The Luke's version is required by the obvious parallelism with the Jesus's words:


(Mark 8:34)


(Luke 9:23)

My strong suspicion is that Mark broke deliberately the parallelism required by ὀπίσω, differently from Luke, who limited himself to remove Alex and Rufus. Or, Luke was based on a version of Mark more old than our Mark, where the parallelism required by ὀπίσω was made evident as it is now in Luke. The point is that Mark wanted to eclipse the fact that the Cyrenaic was going behind Jesus, because Mark didn't like the fact that the Cyrenaic succeeded just where Peter failed. Hence this is not the Mark that we know, the dear old anti-petrine Mark. This is at contrary a Mark who wanted to reduce the importance of the Cyrenaic, because he knew the important role played by the Cyrenaic per Glaukias/Basilides. The Cyrenaic suffered in the place of Jesus, hence he was so much important just as Judas in the Gospel of Judas.


The pattern is repeated: the best disciple is in both the cases who would die in the place of Jesus.