Malachi151

So they found an Alexander son of Simon and now they have found "the guy who carried Jesus' cross"!

Oh boy.

I also like how in my Study Bible is says "in reality Simon only carried the cross beam".

WTF? This goes back to the other historicist thread and how these Bible scholars infer things.

At any rate Ben, yes, saying that Simon was supposed to be a Gentile is perhaps too much of a stretch, though I don't find it an unreasonable proposal, there isn't anything concrete enough to say that is defiantly the intention. I still suspect that that was the intention, but I worded what I said too strongly.

Gamera

It would be telling if Simon didn't appear in one of the gospel, which would give us an entree into why he appeared in some or not others. But he's in each.

So this seemingly chance occurrence must have been significant to each of the authors, and hence a critical narrative element.

I haven't worked this out, but I think this detail can be productively analyzed using the Lacanian method. A rough and ready analysis would be that Simon is a repetition of the passion writ small. The incident draws on repetition automatism, something Jacque Lacan uses extensively in his famous seminar on Poe's Purloined Letter. Lacan might say (and I think some Lacan followers have even mentioned the Simon trope) that Simon becomes a signifier of Christ, which emphasizes the significance of Christ as death, the thing hovers over the Passion, but isn't present because of the pending Resurrection. Simon, who is not the Christ, in taking Jesus' place and walking in his shoes, emphasizes the power of death (Simon isn't the Christ and isn't going to be resurrected, at least not in the same way).

Lacan would argue that this was not a conscious symbol used by the gospel authors; but a deep structure that emerged out of the narrative (either because something like this happened and the author's unconsciously were attracted to it; or because it was fictionalized to produce this effect).

By the way those interested in this kind of analysis might want to read Derrida's difficult "Gift Of Death" which attempts to deconstruct the crucifixion. It's ultimately anti-Lacanian, but Derrida famously engaged Lacan on this matter.


http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/lacpoe.htm

http://www.guidetopsychology.com/death.htm

Solo

And then again there may not be. The tradition of pressing Simon into service does not have any obvious theological or symbolical meaning that I can see, at least not in the context in which it appears. I remember Wells complaining that the mention of Rufus and Alexander being a sign of reporting actual events was "gratuitous". I would not say that but I don't think it's more than fifty-fifty. They naturally could be the actual reporters of their father's duty to Mark, but just as likely it could be an obscure reference to names in other events whose real import has been lost. We are dealing with one verse that does not reference anything that seems plausibly connected. As for Luke stating that that Simon followed, this may be another instance of his reading something into Mark that Mark may not have intended (like in the arrest in Gethsemane that we discussed). I agree with you that "taking up the cross" and following Jesus is not an option in interpreting Simon, since the context of the story does not follow the saying.
(which was basically warning mystical adepts against blazing their own trails and starting their own cults).

Jiri

Gamera

Simon was the subject of a lot of Medieval exegesis. Some saw him as a type of Peter (another "Simon), who misunderstood the meaning of the cross until Paul "pressed" him into service. Others saw him as an Everyman, who bumbles into faith. And so forth. The exegetical possibilities are endless.

Toto

The Nazarenus site, which holds that the gospels were a play by Seneca, finds a number of explanations for Simon the Cyrene and his sons in terms of theatrical conventions.I'm not saying that I think that the gospels were inspired by a lost play by Seneca, but this does seem to be one of many possible theatrical conventions that can be found in the gospels.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for the input, everybody.

There is one more oddity about Simon of Cyrene that any hypothesis about him ought to cover: Simon is identified by his sons instead of by his father.

By far the most common way to identify somebody was with a patronymic (such as Lot son of Haran, John son of Zechariah, Jesus son of Joseph, and so forth). Identifying a man by his sons is rare. Interestingly, it is paralleled elsewhere in the passion account, where a certain Mary is identified by her sons James and Joses.

Some of the hypotheses presented here attempt to explain the names Alexander and Rufus, but now can they be pressed to explain why Alexander and Rufus were made descendants rather than ancestors? (IOW, if Mark is freely composing and simply needs to work these particular names in for some reason, why did he not do the usual thing and say Simon the son of Alexander, the son of Rufus?)

Ben.

Larsguy47

I think this is just an important timing detail for Christ's crucifixion. Christ's trial was on Wednesday, Nisan 19th at noon. He wasn't impaled until 9:00 p.m. that night. In that context Simon of Cyrene "coming from the field" would have likely been a migrant worker in the barley harvest, now leaving the field at the end of the day and thus just after sundown if we presume the work day ended at sundown. Obviously, likely poor and available for hire, he was impressed into service to help Jesus. I'm assuming he was paid a welcomed minimal amount for that service.

So this tells us, at least, Jesus was not led out to Calgary until after sunset, suggesting that impalements were routinely carried out at night. This is consistent with the famous execution mentioned by Josephus where rebel rabbis were burned at the stake by Herod the same night of an eclipse. Of course this "after dinnertime" event was likely when most would be available for the spectacle and it would permit the condemned to serve their day on the stake. The Jewish day began at nightfall (only sabbath days began earlier at sunset).

Of course, as noted, it's an important detail that confirms Jesus was not killed on Nisan 14th, the day he ate passover, but sometime afterwards when the harvesting began. The harvesting did not begin until the "firstfruits" were offered on the 15th.

And that's my 2 cents (well, more like 1-1/2 cents!)

Larsguy47

Gamera

The perhaps too obvious reason for mentioning Rufus, the son of Simon, was that he was the same Rufus known to Paul in Romans 16:13, or at least was purported to be, either by Mark, or a redactor. Such is the tradition at least.

Malachi151

Actually I took the "passing by on the way from the country" as another indicator this this was a Gentile, someone who was just passing through. A Jew, I would assume, would have been there for the festival, Passover, and would have been there to watch Jesus, but this was just some out of town Gentile.

That's how I took it anyway.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for your response, Neil.

Okay, I have checked these posts (but little else on that thread, since it really does not deal specifically with Simon of Cyrene, so if I have missed some crucial contextual detail please let me know).

Here is the exchange that I found about Simon:

Michael here refers to a comment of his in his own commentary on Mark 15.21-32:

T.E. Schmidt (1995) argues that Simon represents the person who accompanied the sacrificial bull in the processions, carrying an enormous double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim's death.

Frankly, I am at a loss as to how to even answer such a parallel. Simon of Cyrene forcibly bearing the cross for Jesus is supposed to mirror the sacrificial executioner bearing an axe in a procession? What in Mark would lead us to such a conclusion? I have not read Schmidt, however; perhaps he makes an airtight case for it. Do you have anything to add to this connection, Neil?

Furthermore, as Michael pointed out, any connection with Heliodorus suffers from his late date (century III); if Mark is using a trope of some kind, evidence of this trope more contemporaneous with Mark will have to be presented.

And what exactly is the mock execution? In Mark 15.37 Jesus dies. Nothing mock about it.

I think that Mark 15.34 is an unambiguous reference to Psalm 22.1. I think that Mark 15.24 is an unambiguous echo of Psalm 22.18. I think that Mark 15.27 is a relatively unambiguous echo of Isaiah 53.12; at least, it was clear enough for some enterprising scribe to make the link in Mark 15.28. I think that Mark 15.29 is an unambiguous reference back to Mark 14.58.

Whether or not Mark plays with thematic ambiguities, the strength of connecting the Marcan passion narrative with the prophetic passion narrative (as Crossan styles it) is in the clarity of the allusions. In fact, archconservatives and archliberals are in agreement on the strength of the allusions. For the former, the allusions mean that Jesus fulfilled prophecy in his death; for the latter, they mean that Christian tradents intentionally modelled the death of Jesus after them.

So it is a bit disconcerting to find that the allusions for this particular episode (allusions, apparently, to generic literary tropes instead of specific OT passages) might be ambiguous, not black and white, not very clearcut or definitive.

How does one avoid special pleading when making this case? Even Michael Turton argues:

Against this interpretation, however, it must be noted that Simon is compelled, and does not choose freely.

This allusion is clearer than anything you have offered for Simon of Cyrene, and even it is questionable. But that is another argument.

That is indeed a subquestion to be answered: Why did Matthew and Luke drop the reference to Alexander and Rufus?

I want to pair this comment with one made by Malachi151:

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Mark overall is just a ripping good story, and even more relevantly that the Marcan passion narrative as a whole is a midrash of snippets and themes taken from the OT and other sources.

Even at that, it does not follow that the overall nature of the work governs each and every detail within it.

Example 1: Even those who think that the passion narrative as a whole is a sheer Marcan invention (that is, that no passion tradition preceded Mark) have to admit that the crucifixion itself, the central event of the narrative, is not a Marcan invention; Mark obviously got the crucifixion from Paul or from some other early tradent. Thus the rule of the whole (that Mark invented the passion narrative whole cloth) fails to govern each and every part (since Mark did not invent the crucifixion).

Example 2: Even those who think that the passion narrative as a whole is fictional are bound to admit that some characters within the narrative are not. (I am reminded of modern sitcoms in which the fictional regular characters sometimes meet famous celebrities who play themselves, and who are thus not fictional.) Pilate, for example, is not a fictional character. Thus the rule of the whole (that Mark wrote the passion as fiction) fails to govern each and every part (since Pilate is not fictional).

If we are inclined to think of the Marcan passion account as a Marcan invention or Marcan fiction, yet cannot suppose that Mark invented the crucifixion or that Pilate is fictional, then we cannot automatically suppose that Mark invented Simon or that Simon is fictional. Each detail must be considered on its own. This is what I meant in the OP when I asked:

I am not saying that either you or Malachi151 were suggesting otherwise; I am just making the case as clear as I can. It is not going against the grain of Mark as invention or fiction to suggest that Simon is traditional or even historical. Nor, conversely, is it going against the grain of Mark as history to suggest that Mark in this one instance made something up. Fictions sometimes contain history, and histories sometimes contain fictions.

(Does the word seriously hurt to pronounce? Is it the combination of two liquids and a sibilant? Just kidding. I saw that other thread.)

As for Matthew and Luke rewriting Mark, it is true that the extent of their revisions is a good argument against a modernistic view of history being imposed upon Mark; however, as discussed above, it sheds no light at all on individual episodes or characters, each of which must be analyzed, especially since in this case Matthew and Luke did not rewrite Mark in any significant way. They reworded him a bit, as is to be expected, but all three synoptics are in basic agreement about Simon of Cyrene.

I would say that few presumptions are objective. What I am after on this thread is possible conclusions.

Ben.