Chili

But it is a comedy Toto, a divine one.

Gamera

I'm not sure. I know it was a medieval legend. I'm wondering if one of the church father's mentions it. I'll see if I can find it.

Gamera

Apropos of this, I recall at least one author mentioning that there is possibly an elaborate pun embedded in the Simon of Cyrene episode due to the apparent similarity between Simon's place of origin and Galgotha, or the translation into Greek: kyrinaion (of Cyrene) and kraniou (of the skull).

It seems farfetched to me, but my biblical Greek isn't good enough to distinguish puns.

the_cave

Thanks, spin—this is interesting.

First a correction: even if the reading were correct, I was wrong to claim that this is the tomb of Simon of Cyrene. It is the tomb of someone named Alexander of Simon. No one named Simon is buried in it.

Next an explanation: the notion that “Cyrene” is the correct reading of the inscription did not originate with the Biblical Archaeology Review. I have the original scholarship in front of me right now (referenced on the Web article), and it notes that it was first proposed by a Catholic monk who did not have access to the artifacts. However, it was also considered (as mentioned in the Web article) by the author of the original article on the tomb, N. Avidgad of Hebrew University. His problem was actually with the final character. The only other explanation he could come up with was that it represented a nickname derived from an herb, possibly suggesting that Alexander was an apothecary.

However, this is not the only evidence that the family (the tomb contains several ossuaries) was from Cyrene. Several names are strongly Cyrenian, or perhaps Egyptian. So “Alexander of Simon” was most likely a member of a Cyrenian family, regardless of what the inscription on his tomb says.

I’ll admit that none of this proves that this Alexander was the Alexander identified in Mark. But it’s pretty intriguing.

Solo

Chances are very very slim, Gerard, that Mark read Joseph Campbell. And since there were no known kings-for-a-day in Mark's neighbourhood (likely Rome) the echo is just in your head. Besides, I already threw a pearl before you on what the "one like thief" was doing in Mark's story. I am not going to throw another one. You only have to figure out why a murderer would be more preferrable to not just Jesus but the other two thieves who were crucified with him. Piece of cake. :huh:

Jiri

neilgodfrey

Are you meaning that you require a nearly precise one to one correspondence of each and every associated detail before you can "clearly see" a literary allusion? If so, literary allusions don't always (ever?) work that way. Direct quotations and copying, do, but not "allusions" as normally understood.

No one that I know is postulating that the author of Mark is working with, say, an historical set of events relating to Jesus' crucifixion and another set of events that are part of a Roman Triumph that he has known, and is trying to match them up point for point. That seems to be the implication of your opposition to Schmidt.

If you are seeking to "learn from a text" and looking for "certainties" then we are talking at cross purposes. My approach is to understand the text as a literary work within the literary and broader culture of its day. And yep, that means many "maybe's" and "perhaps's". The knowledge and conclusions I work with are always tentative. That doesn't worry me. It allows for further exploration along the way.

The search for certainty and absolute lessons and meanings excludes the possibility that an author who works with ambiguities (and/or irony/paradox) has anything of value to contribute. Or else it means that a reader must interpret that author in a way that removes all ambiguity and irony or paradox. Either way, the original text is lost to such a reader.

I've mentioned Kermode a thousand times by now it seems, and the mention of his work (Genesis of Secrecy) was what pricked my ears when I heard an interview with existentialist John Carroll discussing his new book, The Existential Jesus. The reason I owe so much to Kermode is that he is the first author I have read to treat openly the Gospel of Mark like any other work of literature. He applies the standard literary criticism to a canonical text.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Ben C Smith

No, not at all.

But there has to be some visible connection, the kind that, once exposed to both texts (the one alluded to and the one doing the alluding), makes the reader say aha! Otherwise we are probably making it up.

When I see Simon of Cyrene and then I see the axebearer in a procession, there is no aha moment.

No. I am not certain what I wrote to make you think this. Some of the parallels are better than others. His proposal as a whole is possible; but the Simon of Cyrene parallel seems weaker than most of the others, and none of them is as strong as the OT allusions.

I am okay with maybe and perhaps. Schmidt wrote very responsibly. He did not overstate his case.

One thing that needs to be explained is why the allusions to the OT are so strong that everybody and his hound dog sees them, while the allusions to the triumph are, as Schmidt seems to admit with his maybe language, so much weaker. Even if we embrace the connection to the triumph, what is the explanation?

And what is your own personal way of culling out the false positives?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Oh, and I am going to be out of town for a few days. It may be a little while before I can post any more.

jakejonesiv

Basilides taught that Jesus assumed Simon Cyrenian's form and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to his Father (v. 36). (Basilades did write a gospel.)

This Simon is a "Cyrenian," or one of the "Kittim," sea peoples anciently associated with the Philistines and Phonecians. Eisman has shown that Simon of Cyrenes shades over from "Simon of the Kittim" to "Simon of Gitta" or ancient Gath, hometown of Goliath the Philistine. Simon of Gitta is, of course, Simon Magnus, who claimed to have undergone apparent crucifixtion in Judea as Jesus. Simon of Cyrene's appearance here seems to betray an underlying knowledge of that version of the story.
Robert Price, Pre-Nicene New Testament, page 108, note n.

"And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene,
Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross." Matt. 27:32.

"He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers,
and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but
Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his
stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be
thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while
Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at
them." Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.24.4)

For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them
coveted the principal power for himself, he (Simon Magus) had come to
amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to
powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men
to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought
to have suffered in Judaea, when he had not suffered. Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer, 1:23:3.

In The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, it is stated "They struck me
with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his
shoulder. I was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But
I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and
the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing
at their ignorance."

Jake Jones IV

Chili

Sure, Simon Magus was Jesus-the-Jew and he had to die under Jewish law ("we have our own Law and by that Law he must die;" John 19:7), while Pilate kept looking at the man and saw nothing wrong with him).

They personify the effect of Judaism with Simon Magus to take responsibility for this crucifixion . . . as they should for there is no greater.

The whole point is that the ego got crucified to set the man free and religion was needed to achieve this. Here Judaism rightfully takes credit for that by conjuring up Simon to carry the cross. It was, after all, the best thing that ever happened and still is the best thing that can ever happen to anyone. Why deny it if it was a comedy?