tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post6757316565543531365..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and RufusBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-48730921724926672012-10-23T10:49:45.851-07:002012-10-23T10:49:45.851-07:00A great article on Simon and his sons.
Not menti...A great article on Simon and his sons. <br /><br />Not mentioned in the post is the reference to Rufus found in Romans 16:13 where St. Paul states (depending upon your translation) "Salute Rufus, elect in the Lord, and his mother and mine" or "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too."<br /><br />Tying this together with the use of &Trehttp://www.sonsofsimon.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-17959516359375575282012-04-15T14:04:54.081-07:002012-04-15T14:04:54.081-07:00Th truth is,Simon of Cyrene had no roots at all,it...Th truth is,Simon of Cyrene had no roots at all,it waz angel Gabriel that waz sent by God Himself 2 assist Jesus 2 carry the cross to his destiny,th angel came in th form of a black man and th significance of the story is that when Jesus died on the cross it waz when th holy spirit left th white world and come 2 th black world where gospel waz scarce,the cross represents th holy spirit,so as we Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-38064039327364858602010-02-17T05:26:48.059-08:002010-02-17T05:26:48.059-08:00Not much point to "inserting" a theologi...Not much point to "inserting" a theologically embarrassing character who is described in terms suggesting the audience should know who he's related to, if that character didn't exist and do the theologically embarrassing thing. The audience will only go, "Who the heck are Alexander and Rufus, and why should we care about <i>them??</i>" (Notably, for whatever reason, Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-72995468953657309152010-02-17T02:34:43.233-08:002010-02-17T02:34:43.233-08:00Since it is pretty well established that Mark was ...Since it is pretty well established that Mark was not a eyewitness to the events about Jesus since he missed much of what happened at the "Last Supper" and at the Garden before the arrest etc then I would say that the insertion of Simon the Cyrene shows that it was not true. John was the only one of the four gospels that was a witness to what happened in those times and John was an Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-80998430942721502442009-12-03T20:07:09.653-08:002009-12-03T20:07:09.653-08:00Say, speaking of Bauckham, I saw over on Chris Til...Say, speaking of Bauckham, I saw over on Chris Tilling's blog that he'd done some follow-up work on the use of the same type <i>inclusio</i> for naming the witnesses in additional historical works. <br /><br />Chris's write-up is here: <br /><br />http://www.christilling.de/blog/2009/11/jesus-and-eyewitnesses-thesis-advances.html<br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-625024143767058592009-11-30T21:10:50.125-08:002009-11-30T21:10:50.125-08:00Meta,
I think the most important implication is t...Meta,<br /><br />I think the most important implication is that eyewitnesses exercised influence on the Gospel tradition. As for dating, I agree with Witherington that this suggests a date within the children's lifetimes. I think by saying "all things being equal" that this "favors" a pre-revolt date (70 AD) he's probably appealing to the typical life expectancy of aLaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-57049413405880551862009-11-30T18:40:26.896-08:002009-11-30T18:40:26.896-08:00but I can't understand how the two being known...but I can't understand how the two being known to the audience indicates it was before the fall of Jerusalem?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-21054669730579345372009-11-30T12:37:32.220-08:002009-11-30T12:37:32.220-08:00Thanks for this, Chris. I think it's pretty ob...Thanks for this, Chris. I think it's pretty obvious that Mark was referring to people who were known to his audience. <br /><br />What I especially appreciate about this piece is that you make the textual case for a historical reading straight from the sources before quoting scholars who agree with you. Far too often name dropping substitutes for actual argument in biblical studies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-77759886962894947202009-11-30T05:42:43.001-08:002009-11-30T05:42:43.001-08:00{{Simon carries Jesus’ cross for a while, but the ...{{Simon carries Jesus’ cross for a while, but the event has no particular theological or narrative significance.}}<br /><br />Indeed; if anything, it might be considered to fall under the criteria of (theological) embarrassment! How many times have we seen and heard authors and preachers talking about Jesus bearing our sins alone for us on the cross? And in the Synoptics, we are expected to take Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.com