8599Re: [XTalk] Dating of GMark
- Dec 1, 2001
> Clearly he is telling us that Alexander and Rufus fit into the moldThere are at least three plausible conclusions about these characters:
> of "legendary characters", yet he has no evidence at all that they
> are legendary. In fact, the scanty evidence we have on these
> individuals (found entirely in Mark 13:21) is that they are not
> legendary. Therefore his speculation is unfounded, and the most
> plausible conclusion is that the brothers are incidental figures
> inteded to help the reader identify who Simone of Cyrene happens to
1) they are historical characters that Mark is properly citing (both
clauses must obtain for Brian's claim about them to be plausible).
2) they are characters, perhaps in the common/local pool of Christian
legend Mark borrowed to lend his story truthfulness (or some variation
on the borrowing/inventing theme).
3) they are later interpolations, not in the Gospel of Mark that Matt
and Luke used, which is why they don't mention Rufus and Alexander.
There are other logical possibilities. Given the evidence we have,
there is no way to choose between them. It is simply too scanty.
> And this is a red herring. Concerning the question being discussed,The question being discussed is whether Simon of Cyrene is a historical
> it makes no difference if John is true or not. At most you are trying
character! If he is a historical character and Mark is properly using
him, why isn't he in John? You bet this basic contradiction is relevant
to the discussion at hand. Which account is the correct account, and how
can you choose between them?
Some commentators argue that Simon cannot be historical because Mark
says he was "coming in from the fields/country" and a Jew would not be
working on a high holy day. How do you respond to that?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>