Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:27 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:17 pm The similarities are certainly clear. No doubt. But how to interpret them? What conclusions to draw? That's where I hesitate more than I once did. (I think of another text that I think is almost certainly a forgery, from that famous Clementine letter -- the forger had the images of a youth, naked, with Jesus.)
I am sure that many different interpretations would arise already among us, as well as among scholars. But does the open meaning of a detail justify the assumption that it is an interpolation or a redaction?

imho it can be shown that clothing is a recurring motif in GMark and more prominent than in other gospels. If the assumption is correct that the young man is the same young man who appears in the tomb, one can see that Mark used the motif there as well (Mark 16:5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe).

The motif runs throughout the gospel, beginning with John (Mark 1:6 And John was clothed in camel’s hair and a belt of leather around his waist…) and ending with the young man in the tomb. There are verses that I find equally puzzling. Why does Mark specifically mention that the Gerasene is ultimately clothed (Mark 5:15 and see the man possessed by demons sitting, clothed and sound minded)? What is the significance of Bartimaeus throwing away his clothes before going to Jesus (Mark 10:50 And having cast away his cloak, having risen up, he came to Jesus.)? What is so special about Jesus' clothing that touching it leads to healing (Mark 5:28 For she was saying, “If I shall touch even His garments, I will be healed.”)? Why do the disciples throw their garments on the colt and on the way to Jerusalem (Mark 11:7 and they cast upon it their cloaks, and He sat on it … and many spread their cloaks on the road …)? This recurring motif also seems to include Jesus‘ white garment at the transfiguration, the mockery of the Roman soldiers who clothe Jesus in Purple, and the dividing of the garments under the cross. The scene with the naked young man could be part of this recurring theme.
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:22 pm One other little details worries me just a little -- Mark is not usually so "obvious" in his allusions to OT scripture. He's normally rather subtle and focuses on a certain theme. But this story of a young man fleeing naked seems too direct, too obvious and too clumsy an effort to remind readers of Amos and the "last days". Perhaps another thought.
Yes, there are some very vague references, but I think there are also some very clear allusions. Mark 15:24 should easily keep up („they also divided His garments, casting lots for them, who should take what“). Reminds me of Goodacre once explaining that the allusions increase in frequency and clarity from Mark 14:49 onwards (But that the Scriptures may be fulfilled).
I"m wondering if Mark's story echoes the metaphorical nakedness in 2 Cor 5:2-3,

"For in this [tent] we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling,
because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked (γυμνοὶ)."

Cf. Tertullian against Marcion: "It was accordingly not without good reason that he described them as "not wishing indeed to be unclothed," but (rather as wanting) "to be clothed upon..."

Mk 14:52
...he fled naked (γυμνὸς), leaving his garment behind.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:27 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:17 pm The similarities are certainly clear. No doubt. But how to interpret them? What conclusions to draw? That's where I hesitate more than I once did. (I think of another text that I think is almost certainly a forgery, from that famous Clementine letter -- the forger had the images of a youth, naked, with Jesus.)
I am sure that many different interpretations would arise already among us, as well as among scholars. But does the open meaning of a detail justify the assumption that it is an interpolation or a redaction?

imho it can be shown that clothing is a recurring motif in GMark and more prominent than in other gospels. If the assumption is correct that the young man is the same young man who appears in the tomb, one can see that Mark used the motif there as well (Mark 16:5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe).

The motif runs throughout the gospel, beginning with John (Mark 1:6 And John was clothed in camel’s hair and a belt of leather around his waist…) and ending with the young man in the tomb. There are verses that I find equally puzzling. Why does Mark specifically mention that the Gerasene is ultimately clothed (Mark 5:15 and see the man possessed by demons sitting, clothed and sound minded)? What is the significance of Bartimaeus throwing away his clothes before going to Jesus (Mark 10:50 And having cast away his cloak, having risen up, he came to Jesus.)? What is so special about Jesus' clothing that touching it leads to healing (Mark 5:28 For she was saying, “If I shall touch even His garments, I will be healed.”)? Why do the disciples throw their garments on the colt and on the way to Jerusalem (Mark 11:7 and they cast upon it their cloaks, and He sat on it … and many spread their cloaks on the road …)? This recurring motif also seems to include Jesus‘ white garment at the transfiguration, the mockery of the Roman soldiers who clothe Jesus in Purple, and the dividing of the garments under the cross. The scene with the naked young man could be part of this recurring theme.
. . . .
Yes, indeed, and I have written elsewhere of many of these details. I have the young man fleeing naked being interpreted as symbolic of the death of Jesus or a follower to be followed by the man in the tomb etc. I don't dispute -- I acknowledge -- all these repetitions and potential symbolic meanings, etc.

On the other hand, I don't think that the notion of a redaction or interpolation should be considered in any sense an inferior or less justifiable interpretation than a claim for original authenticity of a passage. I don't agree that we should always presume authenticity unless proven without a shadow of doubt otherwise.

But I'm not saying that our fleeing youth is an interpolation, either. I simply don't know. That's why I tossed in the ring here the argument for it being an interloper. I can see how magical and richer Mark's gospel becomes if it is part of the original; on the other hand there are arguments against -- and I don't think those have been addressed directly yet, only bypassed in favour of alternative arguments.

What would be lost if the passage were found to be a later addition to the original text?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:26 pm What would be lost if the passage were found to be a later addition to the original text?
Nothing is ever lost, if it is the truth. Only gained.

Consider Ron Cameron's hypothesis about Mark here:

Most of all, the discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark has made us privy to new and unparalleled information about the various editions of the Gospel of Mark, and has brought to our attention the widespread esoteric tradition among the earliest believers in Jesus. . . the canonical (or "public") Gospel of Mark appears to be an abridgment of the Secret Gospel of Mark. The first edition of Mark, which was written ca. 70 C.E., is no longer extant. The Secret Gospel of Mark was probably composed around the beginning of the second century, most likely in Syria. Sometime thereafter our present edition of Mark, with only vestiges of the secret tradition still visible (Mark 4:11; 9:25-27; 10:21, 32, 38-39; 12:32-34; 14:51-52), took shape.

If correct, then this is an example in support of the idea of an expansion of Mark that has now left "vestiges" (at least, this interpolation) in the majority text. Once the hypothesis of an interpolation starts here, we have to wonder at least where it might end.

It also lends itself to different avenues of interpretation, and of the author's purpose, if it is an interpolation.

In any case, if a hypothesis of interpolation is advanced here, it can be considered a productive one and the basis of further inquiry.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by neilgodfrey »

I first began to wonder seriously about "the young man who ran away naked" from the scene of the betrayal of Jesus when I read Frank Kermode's The Genesis of Secrecy -- a book about interpreting literature rather than theology.

Kermode begins with a comparison with a scene in James Joyce's Ulysses:

Let me remind you about the Man in the Macintosh. He first turns up at Paddy Dignam's funeral, in the Hades chapter. Bloom wonders who he is. "Now who is that lanky looking galoot over there in the macintosh? Now who is he I'd like to know?" And Bloom reflects that the presence of this stranger increases the number of mourners to thirteen, "Death's number." "Where the deuce did he pop out of? He wasn't in the chapel, that I'll swear." . . . (p. 50)

After some discussion he comes to the next instance of a cryptic character appearing suddenly out of nowhere....

"And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked." And that is all Mark has to say about this young man.

The difficulty is to explain where the deuce he popped up from. One way of solving it is to eliminate him, to argue that he has no business in the text at all. Perhaps Mark was blindly following some source that gave an inconsistent account of these events, simply copying it without thought. Perhaps somebody, for reasons irrecoverably lost, and quite extraneous to the original account, inserted the young man later. Perhaps Matthew and Luke omitted him [if they had him in their copies of Mark] because the incident followed so awkwardly upon the statement that all had fled. [It is also conjectured that the Greek verb translated as "followed," sunekolouthei, might have the force of "continued to follow," though all the rest had fled.*] Anyway, why is the youth naked? Some ancient texts omit the phrase epi gumnou, which is not the usual way of saying "about his body" and is sometimes called a scribal corruption; but that he ran away naked [gumnos] when his cloak was removed is not in doubt. So we have to deal with a young man who was out on a chilly spring night (fires were lit in the high priest's courtyard) wearing nothing but an expensive, though not a warm, shirt. "Why," asks one commentator, "should Mark insert such a trivial detail in so solemn a narrative?" ** And, if the episode of the youth had some significance, why did Matthew and Luke omit it? We can without difficulty find meanings for other episodes in the tale (for instance, the kiss of Judas, or the forbidding of violent resistance, which makes the point that Jesus was not a militant revolutionist) but there is nothing clearly indicated by this one. . . .

(pp 55f)

* Kermode cites Taylor's commentary, but compare also one of the points I copied recently from Wilke
** cites Cranfield's commentary

Kermode lists common explanations and one of his own (my formatting):

If the episode is not rejected altogether, it is usually explained in one of three ways.

First, it refers to Mark's own presence at the arrest he is describing. Thus it is a sort of reticent signature, like Alfred Hitchcock's appearances in his own films, or Joyce's as Macintosh. This is not widely believed, nor is it really credible.

Secondly, it is meant to lend the whole story verisimilitude, an odd incident that looks as if it belongs to history-like fortuity rather than to a story coherently invented - the sort of confirmatory detail that only an eyewitness could have provided - a contribution to what is now sometimes called l'effet du réel. We may note in passing that such registrations of reality are a commonplace of fiction; in their most highly developed forms we call them realism.

Thirdly, it is a piece of narrative developed (in a manner not unusual, of which I shall have something to say later) from Old Testament texts, notably Genesis 39:12 and Amos 2:16. Taylor, with Cranfield concurring, calls this proposition "desperate in the extreme."

And his own "incorrect" option?

I suppose one should add a fourth option, which is, as with Macintosh, to give up the whole thing as a pseudoproblem, or anyway insoluble; but although commentators sometimes mention this as a way out they are usually prevented by self-respect and professional commitment from taking it.

That one hurts.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by rgprice »

The difficulty is to explain where the deuce he popped up from. One way of solving it is to eliminate him, to argue that he has no business in the text at all. Perhaps Mark was blindly following some source that gave an inconsistent account of these events, simply copying it without thought.
Again, that all of these aspects of Mark are scriptural allusions is by far the best explanation. Not least of which because it doesn't just explain one thing here or there, but rather explains dozens, if not hundreds, of such cases in Mark, all within a consistent framework.

From my perspective, various strained claims by folks like Dennis MacDonald, Kermode, John Shelby Spong, Tolbert, etc. are all far more parsimoniously explained by acknowledging that every scene in Mark is derived from scriptural references, and that all of these elements are part of scriptural references.

This doesn't just provide an off-hand interpretation of one scene at a time, it provides a holistic explanation for every scene. And as I say in DtG, there is a common theme across all of the references. Indeed, I think the case for this is much stronger than what I put forward in DtG. Because when I wrote DtG I didn't fully appreciate the roll of the Elijah/Elisha narrative.

Every single scene in Mark is related back to scriptures that address the destruction of the Temple. That's also why Mark uses the Elijah/Elisha narrative.

Mark is using scriptures that deal with the destruction of the First Temple, to create a narrative about the destruction of the Second Temple. The Elijah/Elisha narrative sets up the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, which then leads into the narrative about the destruction of the Southern Kingdom, and ultimately the Temple itself. We begin with the works of Elijah and Elisha, followed primarily then by Isaiah and Jeremiah. Other scriptures, such as Hosea and Amos, which also talk about God's displeasure with the Jews, are utilized as well.

Every single scripture that is used has a common underlying theme.

Here again, Amos 2 fits this theme.

5 And I will send a fire on Judah, and it shall devour the foundations of Jerusalem.
6 Thus says the Lord; for three sins of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away from him, because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for sandals,
7 in which to tread on the dust of the earth, and they have smitten upon the heads of the poor, and have perverted the way of the lowly; and a son and his father have gone into the same maid, that they might profane the name of their God.
8 And binding their clothes with cords, they have made them curtains near the altar, and they have drunk wine gained by extortion in the house of their God.
9 But I removed the Amorite from before them, whose height was the height of a cedar, and who was as strong as an oak, and I removed his fruit above and his root beneath.
10 And I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you about in the desert forty years, that you should inherit the land of the Amorites.
11 And I took of your sons for prophets, and of your young men to be nazirites. Are not these things so, you sons of Israel? Says the Lord.
12 But you gave the nazirites drink wine, and you commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.
13 Therefore behold, I roll under you, as a wagon full of straw is rolled.
14 And flight shall perish from the runner, and the strong shall not hold fast his strength, and the warrior shall not save his life;
15 and the archer shall not withstand, and he that is swift of foot shall in by no means escape; and the horseman shall not save his life.
16 And the strong shall find no confidence in power: the naked shall flee away in that day, says the Lord.

This exactly fits how Mark uses scriptural references in dozens of other examples found throughout Mark. I can point to at least 15 examples in Mark that look exactly like this. The Temple Cleansing Scene and Hosea 9 is a prime example.

Mark uses references to the scriptures to draw attention to passages in the Jewish scriptures that condemn the Jews and talk about how God is going to destroy them and send punishments against them. This happens in Mark over and over and over and over and over from beginning to end.

The Gospel of Mark is about showing how the actions of the Jews, "once again" (according to the writer), betrayed the will of God and led to God's wrath against the Jews, leading to God's use of the Romans as instruments of punishment against them. The story is about how the actions of the Jewish leaders led God to abandon the Jews and transfer his divine providence to the Gentiles. And the writer uses the Jewish scriptures to show that this is a pattern of repeated behavior that the Jews are fated to fall to.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:26 pm on the other hand there are arguments against -- and I don't think those have been addressed directly yet, only bypassed in favour of alternative arguments.
I think we're looking at the problem from very different perspectives. In Germany, literary criticism was the dominant approach to these texts for over a century. I know of treatises that break down three or four verses of GMark into just as many redactional layers of text, examine their "Sitz im Leben" and boldly locate the origin of these layers in Jerusalem, Galilee, Rome, etc. Above all, I'm tired of the fact that these scholars examined individual verses, emphasizing their enormous unusualness, but never came to the conclusion that, despite the many unusual verses, such unusualness is not the exception but the rule in GMark. Not a word about the fact that some texts of the Hebrew Bible show exactly the same characteristics.

What is the difference between the young man and the woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14:3? The unnamed woman is the acting person in a single verse, appearing out of nowhere and disappearing again. The rest of the pericope is just a discussion between Jesus and the opponents. What about Jesus in Mark 1:9? I understand that the way the young man appears in the story and is briefly portrayed is extremely unusual and even strange. But if in a story many characters appear in this way, then the reader should be prepared for the fact that this is the way it is in this story.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by rgprice »

@Kunigunde Kreuzerin

Agreed. In DtG I state:

Ironically, the way that the author used literary allusions has led some modern biblical scholars to mistakenly claim that the Gospel of Mark must have been based on oral traditions. They make this claim because the use of literary allusions leads to a choppy, disconnected narrative. By this I mean that the narrative of the Gospel of Mark appears to be a running series of independent anecdotes, like a series of small narratives that are strung together. Some scholars attempt to explain this by saying that the story is a collection of orally passed-on anecdotes. What I demonstrate here, however, is that the reason behind this phenomenon is not that the story is a collection of oral anecdotes, but rather it is because the story is a running series of literary allusions. Yet, analysis of these literary allusions shows that, far from being a disconnected collection of isolated scenes, there are strong themes and patterns that tie all of the scenes together in an intricate and well-thought-out way, which shows that the whole story was cohesively crafted by the author.

I understand that the way the young man appears in the story and is briefly portrayed is extremely unusual and even strange. But if in a story many characters appear in this way, then the reader should be prepared for the fact that this is the way it is in this story.
Right, and the reason behind the phenomenon is that the scenes are crafted from scriptural references. Things come and go, appear and disappear, based on the underlying text.

I'll use the stilling of the storm as an example:

Mark 4:
35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” 36 And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. 37 A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 39 He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” 41 And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”


Psalm 107:
23 Some went out on the sea in ships;
they were merchants on the mighty waters.
24 They saw the works of the Lord,
his wonderful deeds in the deep.
25 For he spoke and stirred up a tempest
that lifted high the waves.
26 They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths;
in their peril their courage melted away.
27 They reeled and staggered like drunkards;
they were at their wits’ end.
28 Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble,
and he brought them out of their distress.

29 He stilled the storm to a whisper;
the waves of the sea were hushed.

30 They were glad when it grew calm,
and he guided them to their desired haven.
31 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love
and his wonderful deeds for mankind
.

Why is Jesus asleep? Because if Jesus were awake then they disciples wouldn't have needed to "cry out to him". If he were awake then he would have been expected to address the storm before they needed to seek him out. But he is asleep so that there is a need for the disciples to seek him out.

The question posed by the disciples is answered in the psalm. "Who is this?" He is the Lord, as the psalm tells us.

But when we look at these scene in the context of the overall narrative, it seems to come out of nowhere and then fade just as quickly. We go from a series of parables to this short sea voyage, then to the scene with the Gerasenes demoniac.

But again, the Parables are built on references to Ezekiel 17. So we move from Ezekiel to a Psalm. This gives an impression that the narrative is jumping around and pieced together from disparate sources because in a sense it is. But those disparate sources are the Jewish scriptures. Not oral anecdotes about the life of Jesus or prior Gospels or anything like that.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

rgprice wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:25 am
Ironically, the way that the author used literary allusions has led some modern biblical scholars to mistakenly claim that the Gospel of Mark must have been based on oral traditions. They make this claim because the use of literary allusions leads to a choppy, disconnected narrative. By this I mean that the narrative of the Gospel of Mark appears to be a running series of independent anecdotes, like a series of small narratives that are strung together. Some scholars attempt to explain this by saying that the story is a collection of orally passed-on anecdotes. What I demonstrate here, however, is that the reason behind this phenomenon is not that the story is a collection of oral anecdotes, but rather it is because the story is a running series of literary allusions. Yet, analysis of these literary allusions shows that, far from being a disconnected collection of isolated scenes, there are strong themes and patterns that tie all of the scenes together in an intricate and well-thought-out way, which shows that the whole story was cohesively crafted by the author.

That sounds very apt :cheers:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:59 pmAfter some discussion he comes to the next instance of a cryptic character appearing suddenly out of nowhere....
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:37 amWhat is the difference between the young man and the woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14:3?
Let's put Kermode's considerations aside. Doesn't this very short scene have this strange effect for other reasons? The figure of the young man and his actions seem particularly abstract and reduced compared to the other characters in the plot. A real interaction takes place only between him and the anonymous crowd (seize, flee). It seems inappropriate that the author (Mark) emphasized the nakedness of the youth.

Isn't the scene particularly puzzling because it gives a bit the impression that a modern painter has placed an abstract and strange figure in a realistic painting?
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

Post by nightshadetwine »

rgprice wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:18 am
The difficulty is to explain where the deuce he popped up from. One way of solving it is to eliminate him, to argue that he has no business in the text at all. Perhaps Mark was blindly following some source that gave an inconsistent account of these events, simply copying it without thought.
Again, that all of these aspects of Mark are scriptural allusions is by far the best explanation. Not least of which because it doesn't just explain one thing here or there, but rather explains dozens, if not hundreds, of such cases in Mark, all within a consistent framework.

From my perspective, various strained claims by folks like Dennis MacDonald, Kermode, John Shelby Spong, Tolbert, etc. are all far more parsimoniously explained by acknowledging that every scene in Mark is derived from scriptural references, and that all of these elements are part of scriptural references.

This doesn't just provide an off-hand interpretation of one scene at a time, it provides a holistic explanation for every scene. And as I say in DtG, there is a common theme across all of the references. Indeed, I think the case for this is much stronger than what I put forward in DtG. Because when I wrote DtG I didn't fully appreciate the roll of the Elijah/Elisha narrative.

Every single scene in Mark is related back to scriptures that address the destruction of the Temple. That's also why Mark uses the Elijah/Elisha narrative.

Mark is using scriptures that deal with the destruction of the First Temple, to create a narrative about the destruction of the Second Temple. The Elijah/Elisha narrative sets up the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, which then leads into the narrative about the destruction of the Southern Kingdom, and ultimately the Temple itself. We begin with the works of Elijah and Elisha, followed primarily then by Isaiah and Jeremiah. Other scriptures, such as Hosea and Amos, which also talk about God's displeasure with the Jews, are utilized as well.

Every single scripture that is used has a common underlying theme.

Here again, Amos 2 fits this theme.

5 And I will send a fire on Judah, and it shall devour the foundations of Jerusalem.
6 Thus says the Lord; for three sins of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away from him, because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for sandals,
7 in which to tread on the dust of the earth, and they have smitten upon the heads of the poor, and have perverted the way of the lowly; and a son and his father have gone into the same maid, that they might profane the name of their God.
8 And binding their clothes with cords, they have made them curtains near the altar, and they have drunk wine gained by extortion in the house of their God.
9 But I removed the Amorite from before them, whose height was the height of a cedar, and who was as strong as an oak, and I removed his fruit above and his root beneath.
10 And I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you about in the desert forty years, that you should inherit the land of the Amorites.
11 And I took of your sons for prophets, and of your young men to be nazirites. Are not these things so, you sons of Israel? Says the Lord.
12 But you gave the nazirites drink wine, and you commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.
13 Therefore behold, I roll under you, as a wagon full of straw is rolled.
14 And flight shall perish from the runner, and the strong shall not hold fast his strength, and the warrior shall not save his life;
15 and the archer shall not withstand, and he that is swift of foot shall in by no means escape; and the horseman shall not save his life.
16 And the strong shall find no confidence in power: the naked shall flee away in that day, says the Lord.

This exactly fits how Mark uses scriptural references in dozens of other examples found throughout Mark. I can point to at least 15 examples in Mark that look exactly like this. The Temple Cleansing Scene and Hosea 9 is a prime example.

Mark uses references to the scriptures to draw attention to passages in the Jewish scriptures that condemn the Jews and talk about how God is going to destroy them and send punishments against them. This happens in Mark over and over and over and over and over from beginning to end.

The Gospel of Mark is about showing how the actions of the Jews, "once again" (according to the writer), betrayed the will of God and led to God's wrath against the Jews, leading to God's use of the Romans as instruments of punishment against them. The story is about how the actions of the Jewish leaders led God to abandon the Jews and transfer his divine providence to the Gentiles. And the writer uses the Jewish scriptures to show that this is a pattern of repeated behavior that the Jews are fated to fall to.
This seems like a likely influence on the nude boy fleeing. So in your opinion, is the boy/young man clothed in white garments in Jesus's tomb not related to the fleeing nude boy?
Post Reply