Chili

The cross represents the entire sin nature of Joseph the wily entreprenuer and Rufus is famous because he represents the spoils of this nature. This means that Joseph was clever and used religion to hide behind in his normal business ventures and that put a fair amount of guilt on Simon who represents the faith of Peter here now rightfully coming forth and taking the credit for yet another conviction by helping Jesus carry the cross (which is in the end is the purpose of Judaism).

The prossession is wherein Joseph 'launders his dirty linnen' so that on top of being forgiven he can also feel forgiven. This would be the realism of Mark without the metaphysics that lead up to it.

Chili

It is fair to say that understanding the purpose of religion is the most difficult in realization. That Simon carried the cross is evidence of a peace bond between Judaism and the soon to be Christ and aloof between Judaism and the new religion that the mythmaker had in mind.

The 'other' from "another will tie you fast and carry off against your will" of John 21:18 is religion and here it makes an apology for doing that.

So yes Johnny, religion is a game we play . . . which has to be true if it is a means to the end and not an end in itself.

Newton's Cat

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?

Chili

Very interesting. So you are telling us that there was a historic event to which this metaphysical passage was interpolated. That would be nicely done and very clever. I clearly see the archetype but I am not familiar with the history that is used to present it. If this is true is it not wrong to look at history to validate the metaphor as if it was a historic event itself?

Toto

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