Ben C Smith

The Greek term is αγρος, or field. It is a good term to use of the place where an agricultural worker would be working, but not a very clear term to use to indicate that the person currently lived in some other place (IOW, coming from the country is not the same thing as coming from another country, nor is it the same thing as coming from another city just passing through). See Mark 13.16 for a reference that is almost certainly to working in the field.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Such a specific connection with Romans 16.13 is tempting, especially given the traditional link between Mark and Rome, but IMHO that specific matter is beyond either proof or disproof.

What is very much worth pondering, I think, is the notion that these two figures were well known, or at least known to the Marcan readership. But I will wait a little bit longer for more ideas on Rufus and Alexander to come in before looking into that.

Ben.

MortalWombat

Just as an aside, how common was the use of the lunate sigma (looks like a C) and lunate epsilon in the first century Palestine? It was my understanding that these were associated with Byzantine Greek.

Steven Avery

Thanks, Gadera. Good point. The connections of the folks in the gospel accounts with the men and women mentioned in Acts and the epistles is quite fascinating. Also appreciated the link from the_cave with the BAR account of the Simon the Cyrenian tomb.

Shalom,
Steven

John Kesler

Gamera? Gadera? Other ancient manuscripts call him "Gergesa."

Steven Avery

As long as he is not called Gerash .. bringing forth the infamous alexandrian pig marathon !

Apologies for the name slip, Gamera.

Malachi151

Agreed. As I say, I think that Mark is about the destruction of Judea, and thus, of course, the story is made relevant to this. Simon may in fact be a real person, but that does not make this scene or these events real.

The author may have been alluding to some well known figure here. Again, like I said, I think that this is most likely a reference to a Gentile Christianity community in Cyrene, of which perhaps Simon was a well known figure.

gstafleu

Mark 15:21 should be read together with 21-24. The NIV puts a scene split (via an inserted heading) just before 21, but I think that is misleading. Here is how the whole scene should be read:

This whole scene stands in the tradition of ritual regicide/king-for-a-day (See Joseph Campbell's Primitive Mythology). That tradition is, afaik, not found in the OT, hence the whole crown of thorns bit cannot be derived from the OT either.

Short summary of ritual regicide: in a belt of societies spanning (I think, I'm trying to remember a map Campbell provides) from (east) Africa to SW Asia, with a leg into Sumeria/Babylonia (this would include Ethiopia BTW), it was the habit to kill the king after a he had been in power for a certain time. That time could either be after a certain number of years, or it could be a moment determined by the priests, e.g. from certain heavenly signs.

A more gentle--for the king--version of this ritual seems to have developed in certain cultures, possibly because the kings had understandable objections to the custom. In this version it was not the king himself who got killed. rather, a "random" criminal was chosen. He was made "king for a day," which means he got regal attributes (scepter, robe, crown) and all kinds of goodies (women, food, drink). For a day: then he was killed.

Mark 1:16-21 echoes this tradition, in a double fashion. First Jesus is made king-for-a-day, then this Simon takes his place as a substitute. It may seem incongruent that Simon was made to substitute for someone who already was in a substitute role (king-for-a-day), but remember there was no real king here grinning on the sidelines, so in that sense the form of the original ritual is retained.

We may be seeing another reference to this ritual in the bit about Barrabas, just above this passage. In 6 Mark says "Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested." This is, afaik, generally seen to be inaccurate in the sense that there was no such custom. This may be another echo of the king-for-a-day ritual. The positive--for the criminal--difference being that the criminal is set free rather than killed. Instead the (alleged) "king" is killed.

Why would Mark put king-for-a-day references in his story? I'm sure that those favoring an ironic existentialist Mark will have no problem in providing an explanation.

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151

I assumed that this kingship had to do with the fact that many Jews believed that the Messiah would be a king.

Ben C Smith

Again I wonder why we have to go so far afield to find a parallel to the mocking of Jesus. We have Philo, Flaccus 6.36-39, to which Crossan calls attention:

There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign.

This might explain the mockery scene (the jury is still out for me on it), but what about Simon of Cyrene?

So Jesus is the substitute king... for whom? And then Simon is the substitute for the substitute?

Yes, that seems incongruent.

If there is no real king, then Jesus is not a substitute, and your parallel is lost. And, if Jesus is the real king (and of course refer to Mark 15.26), and Simon the substitute, then it is Simon who should be receiving the pseudo-royal treatment, not Jesus. But, instead, Simon is forced to bear a cross.

Ben.