THE HERMENEUTICS OF FICTIONAL BLACK AND

FACTUAL RED:
*
THE MARKAN SIMON OF CYRENE
AND THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
*
William John Lyons
University of Bristol
Bristol, UK
ABSTRACT
This article notes the polarized nature of scholarship on Simon of Cyrene (Mark
15.21) and reviews the evidence used to support both the view that he is a ctional
character and the view that he is a historical gure. This falls into four categories:
competing traditions, homiletic function, absence of Christian witnesses, and the
signicance of Alexander and Rufus. Concluding that the evidence invoked can-
not account for these divergent views, I propose that the decisive factor in
scholarly choice is hermeneutical in origin; it is the inuence of the matrix of
presuppositions that each scholar brings to this text. Until such time as we have
investigated these matrices more fully, I suggest that any agreement on texts like
Mark 15.21 will remain strictly limited. By way of conclusion, my personal view
of Simon is outlined and deemed less than adequate in the light of this study.
Key words: fact, ction, Gospel of Mark, hermeneutics, Jesus Seminar, Quest for
the historical Jesus, Simon of Cyrene
A well-known feature of the publications of the Jesus Seminar is the predomi-
nance of black as their colour of choice for the Markan passion narrative
(14.5315.47). Of all the words in Marks account, only Jesus ogging and
his being handed over for crucixion, both at Pilates command (15.15), and
the terse comment and the soldiers crucify him (15.24) are coloured red.
1
* The four colours used by the Jesus Seminar are here rendered monochromatically as
red (bold italic), pink (grey italic), grey (grey) and black (bold). For the various meanings
attached to the colours, see M.A. Powells Chart 3 in his The Jesus Debate: Modern Histori-
ans Investigate the Life of Christ [Oxford: Lion, 1998], p. 79. Black is colloquially rendered as:
Theres been some mistake; red as: Thats Jesus! These simple definitions will suffice here.
1. It should be acknowledged that few, if any, members of the Jesus seminar ever voted
for precisely the coloured version of the text which appears in R.W. Funk and the Jesus
Seminars The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1998). Many differences exist between individual members and these are
perhaps exacerbated by the weighting assigned to the various colours (an issue pointed out by,
e.g., Powell, The Jesus Debate, pp. 77-80). To give one example of difference: G. Ldemann
Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus
Vol. 4.2 pp. 139-154
DOI: 10.1177/1476869006064872
2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi
http://JSHJ.sagepub.com
140 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
Dominating their deliberations is the conclusion that the disciples had already
ed the scene and were thus unable to offer any eyewitness testimony as to what
happened after Jesus arrest.
2
This lack of knowledge is lled most famously by
J.D. Crossans view that dogs perhaps ate Jesus body.
3
Elements of the text indicating the involvement of Jewish authorities in the
death of Jesus have been regarded as pink (14.53; 15.1), as has the brief account
of the women watching the crucixion from afar (15.40-41).
4
The former is sup-
ported only by general supposition rather than substantive evidence, however,
5
and the latter is supported only by a rather vague invocation of scholarly soli-
darity with these repressed women.
6
Crucially, these women are not held to
provide testimony that will validate any of the other elements of the Markan
passion narrative.
7
The rest of the material is predominantly black with very
occasional grey patches (e.g. 15.1a, 2, 25b).
8
The scene is thus set for the Seminars consideration of Mk 15.21:
Koi oyyoptuouoiv opoyovo ivo 2iovo Kupqvoiov tp_otvov o oypou,
ov otpo Aitovpou |oi Pouou, ivo opq ov ooupov ouou.
9

has argued that the titulus placed on the cross would not have been created by the early Church
and hence is historical (Jesus After Two Thousand Years: What He Really Said and Did
[London: SCM Press, 2000], p. 108), a view inconsistent with the grey rating assigned to it in
Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus (p. 155).
2. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p. 145. Despite the statement that the
Fellows were relatively certain that the disciples ed at the time of the arrest as the reports
indicate (p. 145), the verse relating this event, Mark 14.50, is only coloured pink (p. 144).
3. Cf. especially Crossans chapter The Dogs Beneath the Cross, in his Jesus: A Revo-
lutionary Biography (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), pp. 123-58 (esp.
pp. 152-54).
4. Both elements are denied historicity by Crossan (The Historical Jesus: The Life of a
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991], p. 445).
5. The statement in v. 53 is coloured pink on the grounds that Jesus was certainly
arrested and was almost certainly arrested by envoys of the high priest. If that is accurate, then
those messengers of the temple bureaucracy would have brought him under arrest to the high
priest. That may already be saying more than our historical knowledge would allow (Funk and
the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p. 146).
6. By voting this passage pink, the Fellows chose to err on the side of the women,
whose role in these events was probably belittled and even repressed, as we learn from Mark
16.8 (Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p. 158).
7. Note, for example, the absence of the women witnesses from the ensuing discussion
of the burial tradition (Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pp. 159-61).
8. On Mark 14.53end, see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pp. 146-61; and
R.W. Funk et al., The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York:
Macmillan, 1993), pp. 121-27.
9. And they compelled a passer-by who was coming in from the country, Simon of
Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, so that he might carry [Jesus] cross.
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 141
The mention of this Simon is explained as an odd bit of detail that was added
to serve Marks own narrative purposes; namely, his interest in another Simon,
Simon Peter.
Since Simon Peter does not follow Jesus instructions [to take up his cross and come
after him (cf. Mk 8.34)] Mark has another Simon do so. The other details have no
historical value; they are included merely to give the scene plausibility. Writers of
ction scatter references to specic persons, places and dates to enhance believability.
Black is the correct colour for this piece of Markan ction.
10
His carrying of the cross of Jesus, and the mention of his two sons, Alexander
and Rufus, are both considered Markan creations.
11
The echoes of the Markan
text in Mt. 27.32 and Lk. 23.26 are similarly categorized.
12
Many scholars have a very different conception of how Simon of Cyrene
relates to the Markan passion narrative, however. In the words of D.E. Nineham,
for example:
[t]he Church for which St Mark wrote obviously knew [Alexander and Rufus] so well
that it needed no further account of them; very likely they were church members. This
seems to guarantee the story of Simons having carried the cross, and no doubt one of
the reasons for preserving these personal details in the Gospel was to remind the
readers that they had a trustworthy source of information about the crucixion.
13
For Joachim Gnilka, Simons name and the watching women are both to be
understood as being connected with the alte Kreuzigungsbericht (old cruci-
xion report).
14
As a man from Cyrene, Simon was a diaspora Jew who probably
10. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pp. 154-55.
11. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pp. 154-55. This view has also been
explicitly expressed in the works of individuals connected with the Jesus Seminar (cf., e.g.,
Crossan, The Historical Jesus, p. 445; R.W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millen-
nium[San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996], p. 235; and Ldemann, Jesus After Two
Thousand Years, pp. 106-108). Such scepticism can also be found in older discussions,
however, as is shown by J. Schreibers outline of M. Dibeliuss early position (Die Markus-
passion. Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1993], pp. 18-
19 n. 64). The eyewitnesses were seen as being derived from an interest which was not
historisch but was rather kerygmatisch. Interest in the former was viewed as stemming from
the Aufklrung (Enlightenment) and therefore as alien to the biblical writers.
12. Cf. the similar comments on the Simon of Cyrene tradition in Matthew (Funk and the
Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p. 261) and Luke (ibid., p. 360).
13. Saint Mark (PNTC; London: Pelican, 1963), p. 422. R. Bauckhams comment that
[t]he reference to Alexander and Rufus certainly does presuppose that Mark expects many of
his readers to know them, in person or by reputation, as almost all commentators have agreed
is, in the light of the publications of the Jesus Seminar, an overstatement to say the least (The
Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions, JSHJ 1.1 [2003], pp. 28-60 [p. 55]my emphasis).
14. Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 8,27-16,20) (EKK, II/2; Zurich: Benziger Verlag;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), pp. 314-15. Schreiber regards the Simon
tradition as the oldest tradition used by Mark (Die Markuspassion, p. 60 n. 16), describing
142 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
lived in a village near Jerusalem, having stayed on after visiting Jerusalem for a
festival or having moved there in old age.
15
Noting that the text does not say that
Simon was present at the crucixion and death of Jesus, however, Gnilka only
regards Simon as providing evidence of eyewitness backing for the traditions
account of the Kreuzweg (way of the cross).
16
Marks mention of the names
of Simons sons is only meaningful, he argues, if Simon himself subsequently
became a Christian (his eventual status being left unexplained by Nineham).
17
For Gnilka, Simon is remembered, not just for the service he provided, but
because his sons provide a direct link to the events of the Kreuzweg and thus
guarantee the accuracy of the tradition.
18

Simon as Gewhrsman und Augenzeuge (guarantor and eyewitness), albeit not one chosen
with the intention of giving genauen historischen Berichterstattung (exact historical coverage;
p. 305). T.J. Weedon also allows the possibility of such an early tradition, but with considerably
less condence (The Cross as Power in Weakness, in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark
14-16 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976], p. 130).
15. Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, p. 315; cf. also M.J.A. Lagrange, Levangile Selon
Saint Marc (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 4th edn, 1966), p. 425. According to Acts, not only did
the Cyrenian Jews come to Jerusalem for festivals (2.10), they also had their own synagogue in
Jerusalem (6.9).
16. W. Schmittals describes the signicance of the man from Cyrene as follows: Simon
bezugt das gekreutzigt (Simon testies to the crucied; Das Evangelium nach Markus:
Kapitel 9,2-17 [Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlaghaus Mohn, 1979], p. 681). The expansion of
Simons role envisaged by Nineham and Schmittals goes signicantly beyond the words of
Mark 15.21, however, and involves making a number of assumptions about his subsequent
actions. The idea for this article originated in a second viewing of Mel Gibsons lm The
Passion of the Christ. I certainly make no claims here for the historicity of the event portrayed
in the lm, but it is interesting nevertheless to note that when Gibsons Simon is nally dis-
charged by the Roman soldiers, he is seen leaving the hill immediately. There is no textual
evidence to suggest that he stayed, and thus Gnilkas view that a historical Simon would have
only been a witness to the Kreuzweg is preferable (Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, p. 315).
17. Though one might speculate that the homiletic depiction of Simon as a disciple
gure is a further indication that he later became a believer, the claim that his sons are known
to the Markan church does not actually require that he himself became a follower of Jesus
(pace Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, p. 315). Note also J.R. Edwardss comment that [t]he
names are presented as though Simon is unknown to Marks readers, but that Alexander and
Rufus are known to them (The Gospel According to Mark [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2001], p. 470).
18. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, p. 315; cf. also Bauckham, Eyewitnesses and
the Gospel Traditions, p. 55. The claimed evidential link may be less direct than Gnilka implies,
however. It remains possible that the sons might themselves have been non-believers who were
well known to the churchs members. It may also be that Simons role was rst described by
some otherwise unknown witness, with the names of the sons only being inserted into the
Gospel later by Mark himself or, as R. Pesch suggests, a subsequent translator (Das Markus-
evangelium. II. 8.2716.20 [Freiburg: Herder, 1977], p. 477).
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 143
Although most Markan scholars do not draw such far-reaching and explicit
conclusions as Gnilka, they often give their readers an opportunity to do so
implicitly. For example, the view that the two sons are well known to Marks
audience is often stated and the reader is left to draw the conclusion that a
certain (unspecied) veracity can thus be ascribed to the account of Simons
carrying of the cross.
19
The gap between these two groups of scholars on this point is remarkable,
but is rarely commented upon in any detail.
20
In what follows, the main lines of
argument used to support these two positions on this verse will be considered in
turn. Since a number of argumentssome explicit, some implicithave been
put forward at various times, it is a compilation of those arguments that is being
considered here, rather than just the ones proposed by a particular source. These
are (a) the existence of competing traditions, (b) the signicance of Mark 15.21s
homiletic function (c), the presence or absence of Christian witnesses to the
crucixion, and (d) the signicance of Alexander and Rufus. In the light of these
arguments, the importance of different approaches to the Markan text as a whole
will then be considered. Finally, my own opinion as to the colour of Simons
story will be discussed.
21
Competing Traditions
The existence of a contradictory account to Mark 15.21 has been widely noted.
In John 19.17 Jesus carries his own cross, and conforms to what is generally
acknowledged to be normal Roman practice, both as to who carried the cross
and to the unlikelihood of Roman soldiers regularly press-ganging passers-by
into helping.
22
It has also been pointed out that Simon of Cyrene does not
19. Cf., e.g., J.R. Donohue and D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina; Col-
legeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), p. 441; R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 641; M. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London:
A. & C. Black, 1991), p. 372; and J. Painter, Marks Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 202.
20. A notable exception is Schreibers discussion of the contrasting positions on such
sources held by German scholars in the early-mid twentieth century (primarily R. Bultmann
and M. Dibelius; Die Markuspassion, pp. 7-33).
21. Potentially pink and grey are available as possible designations for Mark 15.21. In
practice, however, either this verse is either ctional and black or it is not. If it is not, then it
can only refer to a historical eventthe Kreuzwegthat should be coloured red.
22. These two factors are discussed by R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, II (ABRL,
7; New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 914-15. That the criminal carried his own cross is
suggested by Roman sources. According to Plutarch, for example, [e]very wrong-doer who
goes out to execution carries out his own cross (De sera numinis vindicta 9; cf. Brown, Death
of the Messiah, II, p. 914).
144 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
appear in the Gospel of Peter either.
23
It is thus argued by those who favour a
ctional Simon that the preferable traditionthat is, the tradition containing the
true historical accountis the one represented by the Gospels of John and Peter.
24
Somewhat surprisingly, however, John 19.17 is not thought to warrant either pink
or red colouring in the Acts of Jesus, an obvious error in need of future cor-
rection.
25
For those who wish to argue that Simon is more than a ctional character,
the decision of the Jesus Seminar to favour John over Mark on this rare occasion
could be seen as rather ironic. Their responses to the two different traditions
range from adopting wholesale the harmonizing tradition dating back to at least
Origenthat Jesus started out carrying his cross, but then could not continue
26

to a complete dismissal of Johns account that is ironically more in keeping with

the scepticism of their opponents.
Such harmonization of the accounts is not necessarily incorrect and remains
one possible response to the problem. The historical-critical method, however, is
rightly suspicious of the easy employment of the practice to solve historical
inconsistencies, and it is difcult to see a compelling case being made for its use
here.
27
The reason most often given for scepticism is that John has omitted Simon
because of a need to counter a Gnostic story in which Jesus and Simon are said
to have switched places.
28
This threatened Johns view of the reality of Jesus
death, it is argued, and so Simon was deliberately left out. The claim that the

The use of the passers-by is less clear-cut, however. Some have argued that Simons carry-
ing of the cross would have involved his breaking the Jewish law (cf., e.g., the comments of
Schreiber, Die Markuspassion, p. 284). Noting Josephus admiration of Roman magnanimity
in not forcing their subjects to break their own laws (Against Apion 2.6), Brown concludes that
the coercion employed in the Simon story should be regarded as an unusual departure from
their normal behaviour (Death of the Messiah, II, p. 914).
23. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p. 261.
24. Ibid., pp. 261, 360.
25. Ibid., pp. 435-36.
26. Note the description of E. Haenchen, John 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1984), p. 192; cf. also the discussion of Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 916-17.
27. It is the ease with which the differences between John and Mark can be accounted for
that makes harmonization unlikely to gain widespread critical acceptance. Note, for example,
the words of Haenchen: The emphasis [on Jesus in John 19.17] prompts the supposition that
the narrator knew and rejected another tradition, according to which Jesus broke down under
the burden and Simon of Cyrene had to carry his cross (cf. Mark 15.21) (John 2, p. 192).
28. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.24.4; cf., e.g., its occurrence in France, Gospel of Mark,
p. 641 n. 5; Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 372; and C.E.B. Craneld, Gospel
According to Saint Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 454. For
a recent discussion of the docetic gnostic traditions in which the transposition originates, see
C. Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction (London: T&T Clark International, 2003), pp. 48-58;
cf. also p. 81.
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 145
gnostic exchange idea was available early enough to inuence John is both prob-
lematic and ultimately unnecessary, however. After all, it is widely accepted
that Johns Gospel does offer accounts of events that differ from those of the
Synoptic Gospels, not least in regard to the timing of the passion itself. The
most plausible way to discount Johns tradition is to argue that he was empha-
sizing Jesus carrying of the cross for ideological reasons of his own. R.E. Brown,
for example, regards as probable the observation that
Johns christology has no room for Jesus needing or accepting help. The basic
principle of John 10.17-18 comes into play: I lay down my lifeno one has taken it
from me; rather I lay it down of my own accord.
29
The view that the historical Jesus was unable to carry his cross could be
further supported by noting the extent of the injuries that would be necessary to
produce such a quick death post-crucixion (though introducing the timing of
his death would bring further complications of its own).
30
If it was ever the case
that arrest injuries and/or scourging led to incapacity, however, it seems highly
unlikely that Roman soldiers would have been willing to carry it themselves in a
colonial setting. Why not press-gang a passer-by?
31
This plausible possibility at
least might explain why the Synoptic Gospels include the story with no explana-
tion of Simons unusual role.
Finally, if the Gospel of Peter has not already been dismissed as a late text
(following, for example, R.E. Brown),
32
such arguments could also be advanced
against its account.
On balance, neither position is left untenable by the evidence that can be
gathered for and against each of the two competing traditions.
Community Dogmatics?
It has been argued that the story of Simon of Cyrene reects what Gerd Lde-
mann has termed community dogmatics.
33
Mark, it is suggested, wanted to
29. Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, p. 917. Similarly, H.-U. Weidemann sees Johns
depiction of Jesus carrying the cross himself as an indicator of his psychischen Strke
(mental strength), which tells us nothing of the way of the cross itself (ber den Kreuz-
weg selbst verlautet nichts; Der Tod Jesu im Johannesevangelium. Die erste Abschiedsrede
als Schlsseltext fr den Passions- und Osterbericht [BZNW, 122; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
2004], p. 375).
30. So Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 914-15.
31. The magnanimity seen by Josephus in Roman dealings with imperial subjects may
also owe something to the somewhat delicate requirements of his own position as a Jewish
apologist living and writing within a Roman setting.
32. Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1317-49.
33. Ldemann, Jesus After Two Thousand Years, p. 107.
146 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
illustrate Jesus earlier command to the disciples to take up their cross and
follow after him (cf. 8.34), and does so by having Simon (of Cyrene) do what
another Simon (Peter) could not do as a narrative lesson.
34
(Clearly, the creation
of this illustration was more important to Mark than the need to portray Jesus
with Johnas capable of carrying his own cross.)
35
He thus co-opted (and per-
haps adapted?) existing historiographical conventionshere, concerning the invo-
cation of eyewitnessesin order to create and sustain his ctional homily.
36
There is little doubt that the Christian tradition has drawn just such a homily
from this text. What seems harder to grant is that this has to go hand-in-hand
with regarding the story of Simon of Cyrene specically as ction. When Brian
K. Blount argues that Simon functions rhetorically for Mark as an epideictic
image of discipleship worthy of praise, for example, he quotes the words of E.
Schweizer in support: Consequently, historical detail which has been handed
down began to speak to the church and became for the hearers a picture of the
discipleship to which they were called.
37
For Blount at least the existence of an
obvious socio-rhetorical function for Mark 15.21 does not mean that it must
necessarily be a ction.
While it may be true that homiletic requirements can lead to the creation of
stories, it may also be true that stories can lead to the creation of homilies. Many
of the words and acts which the Jesus Seminar have argued go back to the his-
torical Jesus also have obvious homiletic functions within the early Churchthe
34. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pp. 154-55, 261, 360.
35. Pace C.A. Evans, who sees the failure to provide a more impressive Jesus as evidence
for Simons historicity (Mark 8.2716.20 [WBC, 34b; Waco, TX: Word, 2001], p. 500).
36. Even if recent attempts by S. Byrskog and R. Bauckham to dene the conventions
which governed the use of eye-witnesses in ancient historiography were to be fully accepted
(Byrskog, Story as HistoryHistory as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Oral
History [WUNT, 123; Tbingen: MohrSiebeck, 2000]; Bauckham, Eyewitnesses and the
Gospel Traditions), such conventions can never force authors to use them correctly or stop
an author from using them to achieve a different purpose. The philosopher Donald Davidson,
noting G. Freges recognition that language lacks a sign to signify sincerity and his attempt to
provide such a sign ( |) suggests that he should rather have asked himself why such a sign did
not exist, the obvious answer being that since its presence in a text cannot guarantee truthfulness,
it is basically unusable (Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984],
pp. 269-70). Without such a sign, however, any method which assumes that conventions
necessarily possess truth-creating properties is itself unusable. In the ancient world, it is per-
haps the creation of pseudonymous epistles that most clearly demonstrates the use of conven-
tions to create a historical effect apart from what we would normally consider to be their correct
usage.
37. E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1970), p. 343;
cited in B.K. Blount, A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Simon of Cyrene: Mark 15.21 and Its
Parallels, Semeia 64 (1993), pp. 171-98 (p. 174)my emphasis.
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 147
many exemplary sayings in B.L. Macks Q1 illustrate the point (e.g. Mt. 7.3)
38

but they are not considered ctions on that account. On the basis of its style and
content alone, Mark 15.21 cannot be convincingly categorized as either homily-
become-history or history-become-homily.
On balance, neither position is left untenable by the existence of an obvious
homiletic function for Marks account of Simon of Cyrene.
No Witnesses to See
In support of the view of Simon as a ctional character, it is sometimes asserted
that the early Church possessed no knowledge of what happened to Jesus after
his arrest. No eyewitnesses were left to witness the ensuing events because the
disciples had already ed.
39
The view that there would have been no reliable Christian tradition about the
crucixion and death of Jesus because of their departure is open to challenge,
however. As Helen K. Bond puts it:
[E]ven if Mark is historically correct here, the twelve were not the only possible
witnesses to Jesus last hours. It is clear from the rest of Marks account that there
were other followers of Jesus in Jerusalem: the owner of the colt, the owner of the
upper room, Simon the Pharisee, Simon of Cyrene and his sons Alexander and Rufus
(whose presence in the narrative suggests they were known to Marks church), the
women at the cross, and Joseph of Arimathea. Paul too suggests that there were
already many believers in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus death (1 Cor. 15.6).
40
Though it could be asked whether some of Bonds named witnesses were
actually believers,
41
her general point must be conceded. Even if the historicity
of the eeing of the disciples is fully accepted, this does not necessarily mean
that no other sources were available; the recognition by the Jesus Seminar of the
role of the women who watch from afar offers a dangerous precedent here. We
must recognize, however, that there is also a danger that Bonds argument could
be misappropriated and used to claim that Marks passion as a whole is accurate
because of the presence of untold numbers of witnesses.
42
But the difculty of
38. B.L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (Shaftesbury:
Element, 1993), pp. 73-80.
39. So Crossan, The Historical Jesus, pp. 375-76; idem, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,
p. 145.
40. Helen K. Bond, Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), p. 59.
41. On the status of Joseph of Arimathea, for example, see my On the Life and Death of
Joseph of Arimathea, JSHJ 2.1 (2004), pp. 29-53.
42. The use of the term misappropriated is appropriate here because it is clear from
148 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
validating the Simon of Cyrene tradition suggests that assuming the presence of
such witnesses is considerably easier than demonstrating their existence.
On balance, neither position is rendered untenable by the fact that the dis-
ciples were not the only possible Christian eyewitnesses to the crucixion.
The Signicance of Alexander and Rufus
In the Gospel of Mark, the account of Simon of Cyrenes involvement in the
way of the cross includes the information that he is the father of Alexander and
Rufus (both of whom are subsequently removed from Matthew and Lukes
appropriation of Mark). Marks readers are given no further explanation as to
who these men are, however. So what exactly is being achieved by the inclusion
of this additional detail?
In support of the view that all of these men are ctional, R.W. Funk has
argued that the details of the accounti.e. the names of Simon, Alexander and
Rufus and their inter-relationshipsform part of Marks literary technique.
Barabbas is certainly a ction as is Simon of Cyrene, and Bartimaeus and
Jairus are probably also inventions. He goes on to write that [t]he assignment
of names and the particularization of place enhance verisimilitude in ction,
and offers Sherlock Holmes and Baker Street as an example of a real place
mentioned to enhance the reality of a ctional character.
43
Also reecting this
scepticism is Ldemanns comment that it is highly unlikely that anyone would
have remembered who carried the cross. As he puts it: [w]ho would have had a
correct recollection of that?
44
Yet for those who see Alexander and Rufus as historical gures this view is
problematic. The idea that the names of Simons sons would generate plausibility
begs the question of why Marks audience would receive them in such a way.
Funks example of Sherlock Holmes combines a ctional character with a con-
crete address, one available for anyone to visit, but Alexander and Rufus are
certainly not so tangible. Mark, it is suggested, has created two ctional
characters, whose literary existence simply gives the later reader the impression
that someone, somewhere, knows them. The members of Marks original audi-
ence either knew this and were willing to play along with the ction (but were
surely not convinced by it themselves) or else were being duped by its creator.
For some, neither scenario is inherently plausible.

Bonds subsequent comments on Marks passion narrative that she would certainly not be
prepared to countenance such a claim herself (cf., e.g., Caiaphas, pp. 98-108).
43. Funk, Honest to Jesus, p. 235; cf. also Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p.
155. Though Baker Street itself can be seen on any A-Z street map of London, number 221B
itself apparently does not exist, however. The map, of course, does not tell you this.
44. Ldemann, Jesus After Two Thousand Years, p. 107.
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 149
The alternative positionthat the way that this account was written indicates
that they are real people, well known to those addressedhas the initial disad-
vantage that it effectively proves Funks point for him. Scholars like Gnilka and
Nineham have bought that idea on the basis of Marks aside and an aura of
historicity has developed around the text.
45
When they argue that the name of
the one who carried the cross was retained precisely because the author of Mark
knew his sons,
46
both Funk and Ldemann may be forgiven for allowing
themselves little smiles of satisfaction.
Funks suggestion that the use of names is a Markan literary technique is not
unproblematic, however. Of the twenty-two appearances of minor characters
listed by J.F. Williams, personal names are supplied in only seven cases.
47
If the
sheer number of named characters is considered an indicator of an interest in
generating plausibility, then it could be said that Marks concern was evidently
not a great one. Since Funk does allows the slim possibility that Jairus and
Bartimaeus are not ctions (cf. his probably also inventions), his claim that
only two names are certainly ctions falls a long way short of establishing a
literary technique.
This does not mean that Mark could never have created a ctional character
or have himself named an unnamed traditional character. Barabbas would prob-
ably be the sceptics character of choice here. Whether because of the peculiar
possibilities of his name (cf., e.g., Matthews Jesus Barabbas = Jesus, son of
the father?)
48
or because of perceived difculties with the release procedure of
which he is part, his non-existence is a simple matter of fact to some.
49
Oppos-
ing this, however, some might argue for the historicity of Barabbas.
50
Even if
45. The reasoning of H.N. Roskam may be considered typical: Apparently the evangelist
assumes that his readers are acquainted with Alexander and Rufus (whom we do not know
otherwise), for there is no point in identifying someone by referring to others who are unknown
(The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical Context [Leiden: Brill, 2004], p. 15).
46. Cf., e.g., J.D.G. Dunns rejoinder to Ldemanns scepticism (Jesus Remembered
[Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003], p. 774 n. 55).
47. J.F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in
Marks Gospel (Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1994), p. 1 n. 2. Those named are Jairus
(5.21-24, 35-43), Bartimaeus (10.46-52), Simon the Leper (14.3), Simon, Alexander and Rufus
(15.21), the female disciples, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome (15.40-
41, 47), Joseph of Arimathea (15.42-47), and the female disciples at the tomb (16.1-8).
48. On the originality of the reading Jesus Barabbas in Matthew, see W.D. Davies and
D.C. Allison, Matthew, XIXXXVIII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), p. 584 n. 20.
49. Cf., e.g., Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, p. 153.
50. It is notable, however, that R.E. Brown chooses to outline various arguments for a
ctional Barabbas before concludingwithout offering any positive arguments to support his
casethat [r]ather than such fanciful theories, it is far less demanding on the imagination to
posit that historically a real man with the patronymic son of Abba and the personal name
150 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
this argument were to be settled to everyones satisfaction, however, it could only
be considered suggestive of a similar conclusion in the case of Simon of Cyrene.
It would not nally be able to answer the question of whether Simon himself was
a Markan creation or a historical gure. After all, even if Barabbas was denitely
the former, Simon might still be the latter.
On balance, neither position is rendered untenable by the details of Simon
and his sons contained within Mk 15.21.
Approaches to Mark
The arguments made on the basis of competing traditions, a homiletic function,
the availability of Christian witnesses, and the signicance of the included
names do not nally allow us to decide whether Simon and his sons are ctional
or not. For this story, there is evidence available that can be used to support the
argument either way. In practice, however, it is doubtful that any of the scholars
mentioned above would support such an even-handed position. As rehearsing
the arguments has shown, their views of Simon as being either black or red are
held with deep conviction; no quarter is either acknowledged or given to opposing
views. How then are we to regard a situation in which two (roughly) equal
positions are transposed into the polemical alternatives currently found in the
scholarly literature?
I would like to suggest that the decisive factor that would explain this evenly
balanced situation is hermeneutical in origin. The simple fact is that individual
scholars will view Simon as either fact or ction because of their pre-existing
views on the second evangelist, the burgeoning Jesus movement, the cultural
possibilities of the ancient world, and because of their choice of historical-
critical methodology.
51
Put in very broad brush strokes, those whose approaches

Jesus was arrested during a riot in Jerusalem but spared by Pilate (Death of the Messiah, I
[ABRL, 7; New York: Doubleday, 1994], pp. 813-14).
51. Questions about methodology have certainly been, and continue to be, a pre-
occupation of those on both sides of the debate. Cf., e.g., N.T. Wrights Historical Method:
Hypothesis and Verication, in his The New Testament and the People of God (London:
SPCK, 1992), pp. 98-109; C.S. Evans, Methodological Naturalism in Historical Biblical Schol-
arship, in C.C. Newman (ed.), Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of
N.T. Wrights Jesus and the Victory of God (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp. 180-205;
Crossans The Problem of Methodology, in his The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What
Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1998), pp. 139-49; B.B. Scott, To Impose is Not/To Discover: Methodology in John Dominic
Crossans The Historical Jesus, in J. Carlson and R.A. Ludwig (eds.), Jesus and Faith: A
Conversation on the Work of John Dominic Crossan (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994), pp. 22-30;
and R.J. Miller, Historical Method and the Historical Jesus, in his The Jesus Seminar and Its
Critics (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1999), pp. 27-46. Note also the recent exchange on
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 151
explicitly deny Marks historical truthfulnesswhether for reasons of method,
(preliminary) exegesis, cultural factors, hermeneutical suspicion, or personal
ideology
52
tend to see him as a creative individual who has either used or
adapted the historiographical conventions of the day in order to achieve the
widespread acceptance of his particular Jesus. His writing technique is thus
viewed as being oriented towards the achievement of that goal and the whole of
his work must be considered in that light.
53
Such scholars are therefore already

method between B. Holmberg, S. Byrskog and J.D.G. Dunn on the latters Jesus Remembered
in JSNT 26 (2004): Holmberg, Questions of Method in James Dunns Jesus Remembered, pp.
445-57; Byrskog, A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition Reections on James D.G.
Dunns Jesus Remembered, pp. 459-71; and Dunn, On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses:
In Response to Bengt Holmberg and Samuel Byrskog, pp. 473-87.
Despite this emphasis on the importance of method, there is clearly little or no agreement on
what would actually constitute a correct methodology. Rather, most nd their choice of
method obvious and the choices of others somewhat perverse (cf., e.g., the dialogue between
Crossan and Wright; Crossan, What Victory? What God: A Review Debate with N.T. Wright
on Jesus and the Victory of God, SJT 50 [1997], pp. 345-58; Response to New Testament
Wrights Review of Birth of Christianity, SJT 53 [2000], pp. 92-112; and Wright, Doing
Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossans What Victory? What God?, SJT 50 [1997],
pp. 359-79; A New Birth? Review Article of J.D. Crossans The Birth of Christianity, SJT
53 [2000], pp. 72-91). In his study of common and divergent trends within the Quest, D.S. Du
Toit concluded by focusing on the current methodological uncertainty, suggesting (hoping?)
that [t]he extreme diversity in current Jesus research couldbe an indication of the urgent
need to develop a comprehensive theory of the process of transmission of tradition in early
Christianity, which could serve as an alternative to form criticism and provide new analytical
tools for the quest for the historical origins of Christianity (Redening Jesus: Current Trends
in Jesus Research, in M. Labahn and A. Schmidt [eds.], Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of
Jesus and Its Earliest Records [JSNTSup, 214; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 2001], pp.
82-124 [pp. 123-24]).
52. Perhaps the most signicant gap in Du Toits description of the current state of Jesus
research relates to the personal experiences and ideologies of the interpreters involved. Though
their work is usually traditional in the sense that each stands within a particular tradition (e.g.
Funk and Crossans work is a modern development of the Wredestrasse just as Wrights work is
a development of the Schweitzerstrasse), the view that these scholarly readers can themselves
be somehow outside the process of interpretation is now widely acknowledged to be untenable.
Though not everyone should write an autobiography as Crossan has done (A Long Way from
Tipperary: A Memoir [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000]), those who work in this area
must increasingly expect others to read against their works grain and attempt to isolate and
question motivating elements of their personal ideology (which may not have been previously
understood by either those holding them or their academic opponents) as a necessary part of
the Quest itself. As feminist and womanist criticism has shown us, this exposure of ourselves
and the traditions that we inhabit may be a long and personally painful road. It seems
unavoidable, however, if we are ever to come to agreement about the historical Jesus.
53. Cf., e.g., the application of the master label writer of ction to Mark by the Jesus
Seminar (Acts of Jesus, p. 155). In sociological theory, a master label once successfully applied
serves to characterize a person and their actions, more or less, permanently (cf. L.K. Pietersen,
152 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
predisposed towards seeing a ctional Simon, partly because ction is a well-
suited technique that their author is known to use, and partly perhaps because
Simon would otherwise be a potentially credible counter-witness toat the very
leastthe truthfulness of the Kreuzweg.
Though there is no particular reason why admitting the truthfulness of the
Simon tradition would threaten the overall portrait of a highly creative Mark, the
above discussion makes it plain that once started down this road there is little
incentive to stop short at Mk 15.21. That the same is also true for those who
hold to a historical Simon explains the polarization that characterizes the whole
of the scholarly discussion of this verse. Since I have shown that neither view is
based exclusively on the evidence related to the Simon tradition, it can only be
concluded that both are equally guilty of writing their implied author into Mk
15.21.
It is the different matrices of scholarly presuppositions relating to the wider
aspects of the Quest that effectively resolve the story of Simon of Cyrene.
54
To
those who have tried to compare the very different Quests attempted by, say,
Crossan and Wright, the existence of different approaches to the Quest will cer-
tainly come as no surprise; the sceptical Wredestrasse is, after all, based upon a
very different matrix of presuppositions to the apocalyptic Schweitzerstrasse.
55
What may be more surprising is just how decisive the overarching presuppo-
sitions of these approaches prove for the interpretation of a single text like

The Polemic of the Pastorals: A Sociological Investigation of the Development of Pauline
Christianity [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], pp. 29-30.)
54. This is not to suggest that there are no signicant overlaps. The problems involved in
trying to force a consensus, however, are clearly demonstrated by the problems generated by
Du Toits list of common trends (Redening Jesus, pp. 82-124). His attempt to dene them
under the banner of the Third Quest, for example, fails to do justice to how the differences
within the current period relate to very different appropriations of both Wrede and Schweitzers
legacies (cf., e.g., N.T. Wrights view that the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar are better described
as participants in a Renewed New Quest; Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 28-82, esp. pp. 78-
82; Funk, Honest to Jesus, pp. 57-76; W.R. Telford, in a overview that draws many similar
conclusions to Du Toit, nevertheless refuses to call the current situations a third Quest;
Major Trends and Interpretive Issues in the Study of the Historical Jesus, in B.D. Chilton and
C.A. Evans [eds.], Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research
[Leiden: Brill, 1998], pp. 33-74 [p. 60]). Similarly, the trends that Du Toit does outline often
serve to highlight areas where signicant gures in the current Quest do differ from his pro-
posed consensus (e.g. John P. Meiers use of the criterion of dissimilarity [A Marginal Jew:
Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I. The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Double-
day, 1991), pp. 168-77]; or Wrights appropriation of K. Baileys work and his subsequent indif-
ference to Q [Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 133-37]). Broadly taken, a global consensus
view of current studies of the historical Jesus is potentially very useful, but if held too rigidly it
may also prove distinctly unhelpful in our attempts to forge agreement on specic issues.
55. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), pp. 28-124.
Lyons The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red 153
Mk 15.21. Despite the actual ambivalence of the evidence, each interpreter
immediately knows the truthSimon is ction/factand each is equally
convinced of the plain sense of their reading of the text.
If the need to recognize the importance of a hermeneutical component is
accepted, there are signicant consequences for future exchanges between schol-
ars holding these viewpoints. While we may hope to nd a smoking gun, the
historical text or artefact which nally answers our current questions, the history
of the various Quests for the historical Jesus does not hold out much hope on
this score. That the majority of the various Jesuses currently in circulation can
be offered with integritydespite the unhelpful rhetoric of some
56
suggests
that we should not hold our breath waiting for such a resolution. Rather, it is my
view that until we have articulated more clearly and investigated more fully the
hermeneutics of ctional black and factual red, any progress towards con-
sensus on the historical Jesus will remain strictly limited.
57
Concluding Unscientic Postscript
I could conclude this article by giving the impression that I, virtually alone
among Markan commentators, am prepared to view the Simon tradition as being
so evenly balanced between the ctional and the factual that no decision is
possible. That would be an evasion, however. My own preference, I must admit,
is for the factual red Simon, and not the ctional black one (an admission that
may or may not surprise anyone who has read this far). In the light of the above
study, however, my reasons for making this choice now appear to be rushed and
incomplete. My approach to the Quest has always been to avoid becoming em-
broiled in the wider discussions about the suitability of particular approaches.
Rather, I have looked for minor textual conundrums which are amenable to
56. Cf., e.g., L.T. Johnsons description of the careless declarations of the Jesus Seminar
and his comment that J.P. Meiers work cannot be accused of historiographical charlatanism,
implying that all of the others he has mentionedCrossan and Borg among themcan be so
accused (The Real Jesus: The Challenge of Current Scholarship and the Truth of the Gospels,
in B.F. Le Beau et al. [eds.], The Historical Jesus Through Catholic and Jewish Eyes [Harris-
burg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000], pp. 53-65 [p. 55]). From the side of the sceptics,
Funks description of many of his sixth group of readers, other professional scholars, as those
who read not so much to learn as to smirk and as trigger happy gunslingers [who] will shoot
themselves in the foot without even clearing the holster is scarcely helpful either (Honest to
Jesus, p. 14). Such comments will not help us build consensus.
57. The emphasis on sub-text and the wide range of views of those involved in J.S.
Kloppenborg and J.W. Marshalls edited volume, Apocalypticism, Anti-Semitism and the Histori-
cal Jesus: Subtexts in Criticism (JSNTSup, 275; London: T&T Clark International, 2005), is
particularly welcome.
154 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
discussion within the categories in which I am interested, primarily that of
reception. Particularly inuential on my view of Simon have been the results
of a previous study on the life and death of Joseph of Arimathea.
58
Since Marks
naming of so few minor characters proved to be an inuential issue in my
acceptance of the position that Joseph was not a ctional character,
59
I found
myself once again predisposed towards accepting that Simons name was also
drawn from Marks sources.
I can now only conclude, however, that the manner in which this position
was reached was less than adequate (if not necessarily, incorrect). As the above
study has shown, tackling individual pericopes aside from a consideration of the
wider hermeneutical issues involved may simply leave the individual scholar
with a decision made on the basis of (an undisclosed?) prejudice. Only with a
clear acknowledgement of ones wider presuppositions can such decisions be
made coherently and only with the attainment of some degree of resolution on
the wider issues can such decisions be made consensually. Clearly, the gaining
of widespread agreement on the nature of the Simon tradition is not a step on the
way towards the resolution of our problems; it is one of the conclusions that
would naturally appear as obvious if consensus was achieved. It seems that we
may have to nd Jesus before we can nd Simon of Cyrene.
60
58. Lyons, On the Life and Death.
59. Lyons, On the Life and Death, pp. 49-50.
60. The hopeful assumption that a consensus is both possible and desirable is perhaps not
shared by everyone working on the Quest. Nevertheless, the view is taken here thatdespite
the past fragmented history of the Questsome degree of consensus may be achieved if all of
the factors involved are taken fully into account. If widespread disagreement still remains at
that point, however, then so be it. But to settle for such disagreement before reaching that point
in the investigation appears unnecessarily complacent to me.