Ben C Smith

A lot of literature is available on the numerous and dense parallels between the gospel passion narratives and what Crossan calls the OT prophetic passion. Some of these parallels I find quite strained, but many of them I find compelling.

Nevertheless, some passages sort of stick out to me as having very little if any OT precedent. While so many of the parallels are striking and hard to miss (gambling for clothing, for instance), the potential parallels in these particular passages become fleeting and generic.

One such passage is the brief notice about Simon of Cyrene in Matthew 27.32 = Mark 15.21 = Luke 23.26. I am aware of no specific OT passage from which this episode could have been derived. The best of the symbolic derivations I have seen, in fact, has nothing to do with the OT. This derivation is the notion that the incident has something to do with taking up the cross, as per Matthew 10.38; 16.24 = Mark 8.34 = Luke 9.23.

But I myself reject such a strained connection:

1. Someone taking up his cross, as the saying would have it, is not quite the same as someone taking up the cross of Jesus, as Simon does.
2. The whole point of the saying is following Jesus, but there is nothing to correspond to following Jesus in the Simon incident.
3. Most importantly, IMHO, the saying is clearly asking for volunteers (if anyone wishes), but Simon of Cyrene is not a volunteer; the Roman soldiers force (αγγαρευουσιν) him to carry the cross (refer to Matthew 5.41 for the meaning of this word).

Another novel interpretation of the Simon of Cyrene episode that I have been presented with recently is that Mark meant us to understand that Simon and Jesus traded places, and it was Simon who was crucified, not Jesus. (I call this interpretation novel, but it is in fact ancient. What is novel is the idea that Mark himself intended this.) This idea falls flat on Mark 15.34, 37, 41, where it is made apparent that Jesus is the one who died on the cross.

So... what do the posters on this forum make of the Simon of Cyrene passage? What is it doing in the passion narrative? And why does Mark say that he is the father of Alexander and Rufus? Quite apart from vast theories on the passion narrative as a whole, what is the best explanation for this single event on its own merits?

Ben.

Malachi151

I talk about this in my book a little:

John Kesler

Do you not think that perhaps Luke was trying to transmit this message by stating, contra Mark and Matthew, that Simon followed behind Jesus?

Ben C Smith

I see.

Setting up Simon of Cyrene as a glowing positive figure (somebody who takes up the cross) does not bother you at all when the text tells us he was forced to do so?

And how can coming from Cyrene be a clear mark that one was a gentile? There was a large Jewish population in Cyrene, and had been since some 3 centuries before Christ. Acts 2.10 mentions Jews and proselytes from Cyrene visiting Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. Acts 11.20 speaks of Jews from Cyrene who had scattered away from Jerusalem for fear of persecution. Jason of Cyrene, upon whose work 2 Maccabees is based, was probably a Jew.

And you are wrong about any strict division between Jewish and Greek names. Jews often had Greek names. See Acts 4.6 for a Jew named Alexander, and Acts 19.33-34 for another Jew named Alexander. Too many Jews were named Simon to even mention.

If these were supposed to be clues that Simon was a gentile, they were remarkably inept clues.

There must surely be a better explanation than this.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That is a great point, and you may be right. In fact, pending further investigation, I am sorely tempted to agree with that assessment; I can even add further that Luke has somewhat softened the forcefulness; Luke may well be trying to tie this episode in to the cross saying. Thanks.

Now, what about Matthew and Mark? They lack this detail. What is the episode doing in those two gospels?

Ben.

neilgodfrey

Simon performs the role of the rustic in a Roman triumphal procession who carried the sacrificial victim's execution weapon.

Check out an earlier post by Vork where he comments on this Simon episode a part of a broader topic and in part a response to a part of mine.

Mark avoids black and white narrative. He plays with ambiguities. So it's probably misguided to attempt a single clearcut definitive meaning for many passages including this one.

True, Simon of Cyrene is not voluntarily following Jesus in taking up the cross. He is dragooned to assist with the execution of Jesus. But the echo is still there, just as it is for James and John being replaced on the left and right (cf 10:37) of Jesus on the cross by the bandits (15:27). Nor is the cross a "glorification" of Christ, but it really is. I also liked John Carroll's idea of Peter even "dying" with Christ when he falls asleep in Gethsemane.

Mark is playing with his earlier reference to taking up the cross just as he is playing with his earlier reference to being placed on the right and left of Jesus in his glory. Neither works out the way it is "supposed" to. Not to mention Jesus being hailed as King of the Jews.

And Mark is even playing with the traditional ancient story endings where everything turned out right through a series of recognition scenes at the end: just when everyone from the high priest to the roman centurion are recognizing who Jesus really is at last, Peter denies he ever knew him.

If we remove the ironies, twists and reversals of meaning from Mark then we no longer have the Gospel of Mark. We'll end up with another boring Matthew or Luke.

As for Alexander and Rufus, we can list a dozen speculations. But not even Matthew or Luke understood their significance or did understand and rejected it. To assume however that they "must be historical" because "there is no other explanation" is to go against the entire grain of Mark's gospel, not to take "seriously" (ouch!) Matthew and Luke's rewriting of Mark, and is far from an objective presumption.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

John Kesler

My opinion? I think that Simon of Cyrene is probably historical. I don't see what Mark and Matthew gain with such a character. I already stated how Luke uses the pericope for his own purposes, and I think that John also furthers his agenda--by omitting Simon altogether.

The fact that John explicitly states that Jesus carries his own cross (who else would carry it?) may betray knowledge of a tradition that he didn't, and John's purpose is to demonstrate that Jesus was a tangible human, not the Jesus of the docetics.

the_cave

Considering that Simon of Cyrene's tomb appears to have been found it's probably fair to say that he and his son Alexander at any rate were historical figures and that Mark knew this.

Malachi151

Perhaps. The first "Gentile" church was supposedly in Cyrene. My thinking on this was that Cyrene was possibly a Gentile stronghold of Christ worship by the time Mark was writing, thus he was alluding to a known city of established followers of Jesus, and using this as a device to call attention to the Gentle followers there.

Alexander and Rufus are undeniably Gentile names. Perhaps some Jews adopted them, but they aren't Jewish names.

Malachi151

This is what I find so difficult to deal with. Mark simply isn't what the average Christian thinks that is is or expects it to be. It is in fact a very sophisticated story, but its fully of irony and tragedy and allusions and it's not even designed to make things clear or straight forward or to even but any of this in a good light.

The story simply isn't a chronicle of Jesus from someone who is trying to record history and establish the traditions and beliefs of an emerging religion, which is what people expect the Gospels to be, but that's not what Mark is, and thus when things get complicated people say, "ahh, but that's too complicated", but yeah, thats' right, it is complicated, because Mark is a complex story that is NOT a historical chronicle.