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

[rgprice]

I believe that he explanation for this passage I provided in Deciphering the Gospels is by far the most coherent:

There are, in fact, many important literary allusions in Mark 14, but here I’m going to focus on just one allusion, which explains a line of Mark 14 that has long baffled biblical scholars. The line in question is Mark 14:51—the fleeing of the naked man. There have been various speculations over the centuries about who the naked man is supposed to be. A common speculation is that the naked man is the author, “Mark”, himself.

However, as we shall see, the naked man is simply part of a literary allusion.

Mark 14:
10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11 When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him...
43 Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.’ 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, ‘Rabbi!’ and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.’ 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.

This literary allusion is best recognized using the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, which is almost certainly what the author of the Gospel called Mark would have been using. What we see in this literary allusion is that it’s a fairly sparse allusion, spanning a lot of text. However, this same pattern is present in both the passage from Mark and in the passage being referenced from Amos 2, as we see below.

Amos 2:
4 Thus says the Lord; For three sins of the children of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away from him, because they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not kept His ordinances, and their vain idols which they made, which their fathers followed, caused them to err.
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.
—NETS

The reference to the last line of Amos 2 completes the allusion that is begun in Mark 14:10–11, which starts with Judas betraying Jesus for money, a reference to Amos 2 where it talks about the Jews betraying the righteous for silver. (A reference that the author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently did pick up on, evidenced by the fact that he changed the word “money” to “silver” when he copied from Mark to create his version of the story.)

As with many of the more obscure references in the Gospel of Mark, however, the line about the man fleeing naked was dropped from the other Gospels, because outside of serving as a literary allusion, it seems to make no sense. The only sensible explanation for the line about the naked man is that the line is part of this literary allusion. Thus, the naked man does not represent any real person; it is simply an element of a literary device.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But I am finally catching up with an approach to literary criticism that I have failed to fully understand or appreciate before and am attempting to work my way through it.

Good luck!

The approach of the old literary criticism clashes strongly with my own observations. I have therefore never been particularly interested in these theories, which I believe neglect or overlook several existing counter-evidence. (Our Ben was able to change my mind a bit.) Just as an example: in Mark‘s pericope of the arrest in Gethsemane, imho he used the prefix "syn" in a noticeable manner. The words in red boldface would also work without the prefix and imho emphasize the interaction of the characters in an almost superfluous way.

43 And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign („σύσσημον“ - a signal agreed upon), saying, “The one I will kiss is the man. Seize him and lead him away under guard.” 45 And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” And he kissed him. 46 And they laid hands on him and seized him. 47 But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant[e] of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture („συλλαβεῖν“ – take hold together) me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 And they all left him and fled. 51 And a young man followed („συνηκολούθει“ – followed close beside) him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

It also seems to me that verses 50 and 52 are constructed in parallel. The disciples leave Jesus and flee all, the young man "only" leaves the linen behind and flees naked. It also seems very likely to me that verse 50 refers to Mark 10:28.

Mark 10:28	Mark 14:50	Mark 14:51-52
Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left all (ἀφήκαμεν πάντα) and followed You.”	And having left (ἀφέντες) Him, all (πάντες) fled.	And a certain young man was following Him, … and having left behind the linen cloth, he fled …

Doesn't it seem obvious that these three verses are related in terms of language and content? Peter claims that they left everything to follow Jesus. But then everyone leaves Jesus and only one newcomer follows Jesus. It seems to me very difficult to overlook this. I could perhaps imagine sources all redacted by Mark at a common final editing level. But an interpolation?

[rgprice]

@Kunigunde Kreuzerin

There is truth to what you say as well. I think there are multiple references to Amos 2 in Mark 14 and Mark 15, and this is a part of those references. However, you also make a good point about the leaving of things.

Let's also not forget the introduction of Peter:

Mark 1:17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will have you become fishers of people.” 18 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him.

Here we have another juxtaposition. Peter, along with all of the other disciples, has just deserted Jesus, but now a new person is "following him". Peter did leave his nets behind, but did he really leave everything? No, the point is made that he did not, because we then see someone following Jesus who trues does leave everything behind. So the point is made, as it is so many times in Mark, that Peter started out on the right track, and began his journey with Jesus, but ultimately Peter failed and abandoned him. He never actually understood Jesus and he instead became a false apostle - a tool of Satan.

As I've discussed elsewhere, Mark is quite hostile to Peter. When he calls him Satan, he means it. This of course is rooted in Paul's opposition to Peter from Galatians.

[Sinouhe]

I believe that he explanation for this passage I provided in Deciphering the Gospels is by far the most coherent:

There are, in fact, many important literary allusions in Mark 14, but here I’m going to focus on just one allusion, which explains a line of Mark 14 that has long baffled biblical scholars. The line in question is Mark 14:51—the fleeing of the naked man. There have been various speculations over the centuries about who the naked man is supposed to be. A common speculation is that the naked man is the author, “Mark”, himself.

However, as we shall see, the naked man is simply part of a literary allusion.

Mark 14:
10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11 When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him...
43 Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.’ 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, ‘Rabbi!’ and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.’ 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.

This literary allusion is best recognized using the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, which is almost certainly what the author of the Gospel called Mark would have been using. What we see in this literary allusion is that it’s a fairly sparse allusion, spanning a lot of text. However, this same pattern is present in both the passage from Mark and in the passage being referenced from Amos 2, as we see below.

Amos 2:
4 Thus says the Lord; For three sins of the children of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away from him, because they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not kept His ordinances, and their vain idols which they made, which their fathers followed, caused them to err.
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.
—NETS

The reference to the last line of Amos 2 completes the allusion that is begun in Mark 14:10–11, which starts with Judas betraying Jesus for money, a reference to Amos 2 where it talks about the Jews betraying the righteous for silver. (A reference that the author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently did pick up on, evidenced by the fact that he changed the word “money” to “silver” when he copied from Mark to create his version of the story.)

As with many of the more obscure references in the Gospel of Mark, however, the line about the man fleeing naked was dropped from the other Gospels, because outside of serving as a literary allusion, it seems to make no sense. The only sensible explanation for the line about the naked man is that the line is part of this literary allusion. Thus, the naked man does not represent any real person; it is simply an element of a literary device.

Cosign

+

Amos 2
4 Thus says the Lord; For three sins of the children of Judah (Ιουδα), and for four, I will not turn away from him, because they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not kept His ordinances, and their vain idols which they made, which their fathers followed, caused them to err.
5 And I will send a fire on Judah (Ιουδαν), 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 (the children of Judah) sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for sandals,

Mark 14
10 Then Judas (Ἰούδας) Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them.
11 When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him...

[MrMacSon]

Amos 2:5
And I will send a fire on Judah (Ιουδαν), and it shall devour the foundations of Jerusalem.

A fire destroyed the Second Temple.
And Jerusalem was completely devoured by Hadrian in the Second War.

[neilgodfrey]

Doesn't it seem obvious that these three verses are related in terms of language and content? Peter claims that they left everything to follow Jesus. But then everyone leaves Jesus and only one newcomer follows Jesus. It seems to me very difficult to overlook this. I could perhaps imagine sources all redacted by Mark at a common final editing level. But an interpolation?

Yes, it does indeed. 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.)

[neilgodfrey]

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.

[rgprice]

The Crucifixion and Psalm 22 is subtle?

[Sinouhe]

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.

I find the allusion to Amos subtle. For example, more subtle than Amos' allusion to the eclipse in Mark 15.

Readers think it's not subtle because it's a naked man.
But it's not just the nudity that is an allusion to Amos 2. The very character of Judas is a reference to the wicked children of Judas in Amos 2, and Jesus handed over for a few coins is a subtle allusion to the righteous man sold for money in Amos 2.

This pesher to Amos fits very well into the context of the book of Amos, which is a book that warns Israel of divine punishment to come, in reaction to their impiety. This fits in very well with Mark since one of his main purposes is to explain the destruction of Jerusalem by divine punishment (the parable of the vine in Mark 12).

So i find this pesher totally in line with what Mark does throughout his gospel. And the pesher seems to be the most logical explanation.

In any case, it makes more sense than than invoking an unknown and mysterious character or invoking an interpolation.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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.

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).