We are familiar enough with the claims that the mention of the sons of Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Jesus indicates that they were real people: the first audience of the Gospel of Mark must have known them personally because there is no other mention of them in the other gospels.
Well, I just came across the following while reading for another project . . . . .
Similarly with a certain Simon of Cyrene, a passerby coming in from the country, who is compelled to carry Jesus’s cross. Despite the fact that he is given an identification by place of origin, he is also identified through his sons, Alexander and Rufus (15:21), who are not further described. Mentioning them here in this way implies that they must be well known. But to whom? To Mark’s readers? But I would point out that it is not necessary to assume that Alexander and Rufus were in fact well known to Mark’s readers, because naming them in this way still performs the literary function of assuring the reader that the scene with Simon of Cyrene is attested by his better known sons. If Alexander and Rufus as the sons of this Simon were in fact so well known to Mark’s readers, he would not have had to mention them at all. (Miller 2017, 395)
- Miller, Merrill P. 2017. “The Social Logic of the Gospel of Mark: Cultural Persistence and Social Escape in a Postwar Time.” In Redescribing the Gospel of Mark, edited by Barry S. Crawford and Merrill P. Miller. Society of Biblical Literature.
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Pretty interesting quote. I had been thinking some hours ago about your post regarding them as founders of Gnostic schools.
Tolkien gives Aragorn a whole family tree.
Identifications are usually to “origins” and hence we name the ancestors. What is happening in Mark is the opposite: the witnesses to the event are identified by their offspring — as Miller goes on to write:
— the suggestion being something like Paul’s claim that there are “500 witnesses” around if anyone cares to check.
It seems logical that Alexander and Rufus refer to well-known Gnostic leaders and that Simon of Cyrene is Simon Magus.
Regarding the name Alexander, I have wondered whether the Roman-Jewish general Tiberius Julius Alexander held any significance for Christians in the second and third centuries, given his involvement in the destruction of Jerusalem. In 46 CE, Claudius appointed Alexander procurator of Judea, and he later received the important post of prefect of Egypt from Nero. He accompanied Titus in the Jewish War as praefectus praetorio (general of the army), probably the highest military office ever attained by a Jew. During the council of war before Jerusalem, Alexander voted in favour of preserving the Temple.
Alexander was a nephew of Philo, whose writings were read, venerated and preserved by early Christian thinkers. He appears as a character in two of Philo’s philosophical dialogues. The Talmud portrays him as both a hero and a villain. On the one hand, he is praised for his heroic efforts to protect the Jewish community in Alexandria and rebuild the Temple there. On the other hand, he is criticised for his role in the destruction of the Second Temple.
A brief overview of notable men named Rufus from the 1st century can be found here:
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Rufus.html
May I add that I have just seen a post on Early Writings in which Tiberius Julius Alexander is mentioned?
The post refers to Simon, Son of Man, a book published in 1917 by John I. Riegel and John H. Jordan, which is available on archive.org. It states that there is only one event in Jewish history in which the names Alexander, Rufus and Simon can be linked: This concerns Tiberius Alexander and Terentius Rufus, two generals under Titus during the siege of Jerusalem, as well as Simon bar Giora.
However, in this historical context, Simon and Alexander and Rufus are not father and sons, but military adversaries: Simon bar Giora was the commander-in-chief of Jerusalem’s defenders, and Rufus was the Roman general who arrested him.
All three names appear together on this occasion: the destruction of the Temple. This coincidence is strange. Perhaps one can discern something symbolic in this, given that Jesus is recognised as the ‘new temple’, replacing the physical temple in Jerusalem.
Logically speaking, it makes no sense, but the Gospels also appear to refer to Josephus in other contexts in ways that make little logical sense.
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=57547#p57547
These sorts of speculations can be nothing more than speculations. They are impossible both to prove and to disprove.
What needs to be done if one wants to make a cases is to explain how a proposed identity answers outstanding questions or offers serious insights into the Gospel of Mark, as well as explaining the absence of certain names from other gospels.
Sorry, I’m missing the logic of Miller’s point here:
Assuming that Rufus and Alexander were NOT known to Mark’s readership, then how does his mentioning them STILL function as a true attestation of their father’s having helped Christ carry His cross?
Key figures (disciples) are identified by their fathers in the beginning of the gospel, but by their offspring at the end of the gospel. Forefathers (no longer on the scene in many cases) are a common device used to identify characters. In the post resurrection scenes the main characters (Simon and the women) are identified by their offspring, understood to be living on after the time of the main characters identified. It’s a device to add credibility and to make a theological-historical claim: similar to Paul’s appeal to survivors from 500 witnesses to the resurrection that you can go and ask if you doubt. The witness is ongoing after the narrative.
Compare the fairy tale ending to “prove” the tale just told to be true: “And you can find the magic shoes or ribbon or whatever beneath a certain tree to this very day!” Adult fiction uses more sophisticated indicators of “the truth” of the tale.
Readers don’t know who the forefathers or offspring are any more than they know who the lead characters are apart from what they hear/read in the gospel account. But adding certain details such as the ones discussed here adds to the literary effect, again, like Paul’s 500. That’s how literature works, both then and now — and ancient authors explained the importance of such incidental details as these to enhance realism, etc. It’s nothing especially clever or unique; it’s part of a treasure chest of common and ages-long literary devices.
The effect works even today: even today many read that description of Simon with his sons and think, ah, so it was true, — why else would the author mention Rufus and Alexander! They are literary characters but they have the effect of enhancing realism both to original audiences (who were probably in Rome and had no chance of actually thinking of really meeting them or their descendants) and for readers ever since.
There’s a phrase, “the anxiety of fiction”, that tells us what is happening. Fiction authors copy the indicators of non-fiction works to enhance realism: sometimes they do it even more effectively than many non-fiction works.