FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-03-2008, 08:53 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,181
Default Simon of Cyrene

Simon of Cyrene had two sons, Alexander and Rufus

Simon bar Kochba had a son called Rufus ... who for a short period led the fight against the Romans after the death of his father.

Simon bar Kochba was declared by some to be the "Messiah"

The 130s ad uprising against the Romans, led by Simon, had its origins in Cyrene in 117 ad.

Conclusion:

The reference to Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross was either added to a pre-existing story about Jesus ... or the story itself was not written until after the conclusion of the 130s conflict.

My personal opinion about the Story of Jesus is that it originated in a sophisticated PLAY written for an intellectual audience. I see it as having been written 100 years or so after the events it describes ... and that the author did not intend his audience to believe it to be a true story. I also feel that the story as we have it today in Mark is the product of a major alteration of the original text. It was the altered version that became a founding document of Christianity.
Newton's Cat is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 09:46 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newton's Cat View Post
Simon of Cyrene had two sons, Alexander and Rufus

Simon bar Kochba had a son called Rufus ... who for a short period led the fight against the Romans after the death of his father.

Simon bar Kochba was declared by some to be the "Messiah"

The 130s ad uprising against the Romans, led by Simon, had its origins in Cyrene in 117 ad.

Conclusion:

The reference to Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross was either added to a pre-existing story about Jesus ... or the story itself was not written until after the conclusion of the 130s conflict.

My personal opinion about the Story of Jesus is that it originated in a sophisticated PLAY written for an intellectual audience. I see it as having been written 100 years or so after the events it describes ... and that the author did not intend his audience to believe it to be a true story. I also feel that the story as we have it today in Mark is the product of a major alteration of the original text. It was the altered version that became a founding document of Christianity.
Hi

Is he the same perons called Simon bar Jonah, rememberd by Catholics/Protestants as Peter or Saint Peter?

Would you kindly elaborate?

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
paarsurrey is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 11:30 PM   #3
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newton's Cat View Post
Simon of Cyrene had two sons, Alexander and Rufus

Simon bar Kochba had a son called Rufus ... who for a short period led the fight against the Romans after the death of his father.

Simon bar Kochba was declared by some to be the "Messiah"

The 130s ad uprising against the Romans, led by Simon, had its origins in Cyrene in 117 ad.

Conclusion:

The reference to Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross was either added to a pre-existing story about Jesus ... or the story itself was not written until after the conclusion of the 130s conflict.
exactly, the canonical gospels are all post 130,
for this and many many many other reasons ignored by naive scholars, secular or religious doesn't make a difference.



Quote:
My personal opinion about the Story of Jesus is that it originated in a sophisticated PLAY written for an intellectual audience
Already Seneca wrote a similar play, the Hercules Oetaeus, which has many more or less vague parallels to the passion play and other NT stuff, as figured by G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga.


Quote:
. I see it as having been written 100 years or so after the events it describes ... and that the author did not intend his audience to believe it to be a true story. I also feel that the story as we have it today in Mark is the product of a major alteration of the original text. It was the altered version that became a founding document of Christianity.
This has already been figured approximately by J.M. Robertson.

Klaus Schilling
schilling.klaus is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 11:42 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

From another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newton's Cat View Post
Simon bar Kochba's revolt against the Romans in 132 ad was seen as a continuation of the Jewish-Roman conflict which began in Cyrene in 116 ad. Simon was declared to be the "Messiah" by some of his supporters.

Simon had a son, Rufus, who carried on the fight against the Romans after Simon's death.

So - the reference to Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus "carrying the Messiah's cross" is suggestive that Mark's gospel could have been written in the 130s ad, or the reference to Simon may have been interpolated into a pre-existing text at that time.

Just as in modern times political novels actually referring to contemporary events are sometimes set in a previous century maybe Mark's story used the same technique?
Simon Bar Kochba did have a son named Rufus, which seems strange - why would a Jewish nationalist give a Roman name to his son? No record of Alexander, though. There was also a local Roman ruler named Rufus at the time.

more

Quote:
Almost 70 years after the destruction of the Temple, the Jews did not cower into submission. For the two years of 115-117CE the Jews of Egypt, Cyrene and Cyprus rose against the Roman dictator. Babylonian Jews as well unsuccessfully raised the banner of rebellion.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 11:43 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

I thought I was just having deja vu for a moment.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 03-04-2008, 12:02 AM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Here's Ben Smith's original thread from last year: Simon of Cyrene
Toto is offline  
Old 03-04-2008, 12:49 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paarsurrey View Post
Hi
Is he the same perons called Simon bar Jonah, rememberd by Catholics/Protestants as Peter or Saint Peter?
Would you kindly elaborate?
Hi

Sorry I didn't know earlier. Now I have checked with wikipedia for
Simon of Cyrene, Simon bar Kochba and Simon bar Jonah:

1. Simon of Cyrene (שמעון "Hearkening; listening", Standard Hebrew *imʿon, Tiberian Hebrew *imʿôn) was the person compelled by the Romans to carry the cross of Jesus as Jesus was taken to his crucifixion, according to the Gospel of Mark (15:21-22), Matthew (27:32) and Luke (23:26):
2. Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא, also transliterated as Bar Kokhva or Bar Kochba) was the Jewish leader who led what is known as Bar Kokhba's revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state of Israel which he ruled for three years as Nasi ("prince," or "president"). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 CE following a two-year war. He became the last king of Israel in history.
3. The Apostle Peter, also known as Saint Peter (from the Greek Petros, meaning "rock"), Shimon "Keipha" Ben-Yonah/Bar-Yonah, Simon Peter, Cephas and Keipha (Keipha and Cephas also mean rock)—original name Shimon or Simeon (Hebrew: שמעון‎) ( (Acts 15:14)—was one of the Twelve Apostles whom Jesus chose as his original disciples.
All four canonical gospels recount that, during the Last Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter would deny association with him three times that same night. In Matthew's account, this is reported as:
Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock[3] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."[4]
and that Peter did in fact do so, while Jesus was on trial before the high priest.

Thanks
paarsurrey is offline  
Old 03-04-2008, 01:23 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
Default

Rufus could also be a nickname, meaning "red haired". It is well known (pop wisdom) that the red-haired people are quick-tempered, and prone to revolutionary actions.
Huon is offline  
Old 03-04-2008, 04:25 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
From another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newton's Cat View Post
Simon bar Kochba's revolt against the Romans in 132 ad was seen as a continuation of the Jewish-Roman conflict which began in Cyrene in 116 ad. Simon was declared to be the "Messiah" by some of his supporters.

Simon had a son, Rufus, who carried on the fight against the Romans after Simon's death.

So - the reference to Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus "carrying the Messiah's cross" is suggestive that Mark's gospel could have been written in the 130s ad, or the reference to Simon may have been interpolated into a pre-existing text at that time.

Just as in modern times political novels actually referring to contemporary events are sometimes set in a previous century maybe Mark's story used the same technique?
Simon Bar Kochba did have a son named Rufus, which seems strange - why would a Jewish nationalist give a Roman name to his son? No record of Alexander, though. There was also a local Roman ruler named Rufus at the time.
The earliest source for the claim that Simon bar Kochba had a son named Rufus (and a grandson named Romulus !!!) seems to be Ibrahim ibn Daud in the Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qabbalah) in c 1161 CE.

Possibly there is a confusion with the contemporary Roman governor Rufus, but ibn Daud's account is rather strange. Koziva (Kochba) revolts in the time of Domitian and the revolt is continued by his son Rufus and his grandson Romulus. Hadrian makes war against Romulus ben Rufus ben Koziva and kills him in the sack of Betar. (Source Richard Marks The Image of Bar Kokhba)

It is unlikely that this has any relation to the historical Simon bar Kochba.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 03-04-2008, 10:18 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Possibly there is a confusion with the contemporary Roman governor Rufus, but ibn Daud's account is rather strange. Koziva (Kochba) revolts in the time of Domitian and the revolt is continued by his son Rufus and his grandson Romulus. Hadrian makes war against Romulus ben Rufus ben Koziva and kills him in the sack of Betar. (Source Richard Marks The Image of Bar Kokhba)

It is unlikely that this has any relation to the historical Simon bar Kochba.
Besides the dubious source, there wasn't a Rufus or Romulus from Palestine to continue the revolt. The Bar Kokhba revolt was the last Jewish revolt.
Solitary Man is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:01 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.