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

[neilgodfrey]

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.

Again, we agree --- on the problem and pitfalls of interpretations, and yes, especially on your last sentence. That in fact was Kermode's fourth option.

But that does not remove or address the actual points raised for possible interpolation. There is a difference between the woman who anoints Jesus' feet and the rich man appearing etc -- all one-offs, yes, popping in and out of the story. But the meanings of those fly-in fly-out characters is fairly easy to discern as part of the main message and characterization of Jesus and within the larger plot of the gospel.

The questions arising about this particular youth are not the routine form critical questions but are more widely recognized as legitimate quite apart from that sort of textual analysis.

I really don't know how we can know that it is authentic. I remain willing to accept it either way, and to allow for interpretations that are prepared to accept either case.

[neilgodfrey]

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

What 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?

Kermode certainly sparks the imagination and maybe too much so.

I am reminded of the Gospel of Peter. We read there a series of disjointed actions and events that are clearly meant to remind readers in each case of a specific prophecy. One can imagine such a scene in that context being meant to evoke Amos 2:16.

Sinouhe said that he felt such a possible allusion was rather subtle. That view made me think of my early days of reading the Bible and being reminded immediately of the prophecy in Amos after I gained some familiarity with the whole thing. For me it has never been a subtle allusion to the Amos passage. More recently I came to see how Mark weaves subtle allusions to Daniel and other prophets into his narrative, but this naked youth does not seem subtle to me at all.

[neilgodfrey]

I think I should bow out at this point --- I am only repeating my same points -- others have a different view for assessing grounds for authenticity. They may be right -- I don't know -- but now I'm repeating myself still again!

[rgprice]

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?

I hadn't considered that, but I'd say its possible.

[Sinouhe]

Sinouhe said that he felt such a possible allusion was rather subtle. That view made me think of my early days of reading the Bible and being reminded immediately of the prophecy in Amos after I gained some familiarity with the whole thing. For me it has never been a subtle allusion to the Amos passage. More recently I came to see how Mark weaves subtle allusions to Daniel and other prophets into his narrative, but this naked youth does not seem subtle to me at all.

It's not the fleeing young naked man who is subtle, it's the allusion to Chapter 2 of Amos as a whole that is subtle:

- the righteous man
- who is sold for money
- by the children of Judah for money
- the divine punishment that will result from this wrongful act.


The naked young man is simply a reference point given to the reader to detect the Pesher that Mark is executing.

The allusion to Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3 is not subtle; it is a direct quotation of the book of Isaiah (40:3)
However, the allusion to the spirit in Mark 1:10 is a subtle allusion to Isaiah 42:10.

The same example can be found in Mark 14. The allusion to Zechariah 13:7 in Mark is not subtle; it is a direct quotation from Zechariah.
But this quotation in Mark 14 conceals multiple other subtle allusions to Zechariah.

Mark 14:24 -> Zechariah 9:11
Mark 14:25 -> Zechariah 14:9
Mark 14:26 -> Zechariah 14:4
Mark 14:27 -> Zechariah 13:7

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But the meanings of those fly-in fly-out characters is fairly easy to discern as part of the main message and characterization of Jesus and within the larger plot of the gospel.

I think I should bow out at this point --- I am only repeating my same points -- others have a different view for assessing grounds for authenticity. They may be right -- I don't know -- but now I'm repeating myself still again!

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Since the passage is just one of many problems for me, I have forgotten why the verses are so extraordinary for others.

imho if you read GMark like a story and you would have absolutely no knowledge of other gospels or interpretations, then you might, contrary to all the predictions of Jesus, consider it more likely that Jesus just died. In any case, as a reader one would probably be just as surprised as the women at the tomb, who receive completely different information from the youth sitting there. Such a reader might ask himself who this youth is and, looking backwards, would come across these verses and would probably have no doubt that the youth in the tomb can only be the naked youth who fled. For such a reader there are not really other possibilities, following the reference from 16:7 to 14:28 and noting the designation as "neaniskos". There may still be some questions about this, but not really other possibilities.

[lsayre]

The young man in white garments (likely one an the same as the boy/young man who fled naked) may have been intended to become the star of a sequel that never materialized.

[gryan]

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.

This is an interpretation that I had not heard before. I'm convinced.

Here is a similar observation:

Mk 4:39
Then [Jesus] got up [and] rebuked the wind and the sea. “Silence!” He commanded. “Be still!” And the wind died down, and it was perfectly calm.

Καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα πεφίμωσο καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη

Ps 106:9
He rebuked the Red Sea, and it dried up; he led them through the depths as through a desert.

καὶ ἐπετίμησεν τῇ ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ καὶ ἐξηράνθη, καὶ ὡδήγησεν αὐτοὺς ἐν ἀβύσσῳ ὡς ἐν ἐρήμῳ·

Source:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
"Mk 4:39. rebuked the wind] All three Evangelists record that He rebuked the wind (comp. Psalm 106:9)"

[neilgodfrey]

imho if you read GMark like a story and you would have absolutely no knowledge of other gospels or interpretations, then you might, contrary to all the predictions of Jesus, consider it more likely that Jesus just died. In any case, as a reader one would probably be just as surprised as the women at the tomb, who receive completely different information from the youth sitting there. Such a reader might ask himself who this youth is and, looking backwards, would come across these verses and would probably have no doubt that the youth in the tomb can only be the naked youth who fled. For such a reader there are not really other possibilities, following the reference from 16:7 to 14:28 and noting the designation as "neaniskos". There may still be some questions about this, but not really other possibilities.

If I may break my leave and return on the justification that the focus is now on the young man in the tomb rather than the youth fleeing naked, ....

if by any chance the original text did lack the fleeing youth scene, I think it would be likely that such a reader would be likely to recall the opening of the gospel where a very different man in different garments was announcing the coming of Jesus. Now a young man is announcing to followers to "go to" Jesus -- rather than a mature man in rough garments announcing the coming of Jesus. Both men are in a wilderness/desolate place. The "old" has come and died and the "new" awaits (in a baptismal garment?). Even if we keep the fleeing youth in the original text, such an association between the "first and the last" has been made by quite a few commentators, iirc.

[Paul the Uncertain]

The latest Uncertaintist post argues for the likely authenticity of Mark 14:51-52 rather than it being an interpolation, and for its status as an actual event in the story world of Mark in addition to, rather than instead of, as the bearer of scriptural allusions.
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... ethsemane/

Features of Mark which underlie the arguments:
- Mark has prepared the audience to meet many story-world companions of Jesus besides the Twelve
- Mark chooses words that identify the youth as one such companion
- The youth is the first of several people Mark mentions who are younger than the Passion principals
- Mark introduces the youth just as the apostolic disciples cease to be witnesses to Jesus
- Many other story world incidents in Mark also contain scriptural allusions
- There are no clear weather-related impediments to the youth's choice of a linen outfit
- Mark chooses apt imagery to show, not just tell about, panic and desperation among Jesus's entourage
- Mark often uses dangling pronouns, then resolves them later, as occurs here
- Mark resolves the Gethsemane dangling pronouns with a potentially audience-engaging twist

The evidence is insufficient, IMO, to distinguish whether this youth is the same as the youth in the tomb or whether instead they are two among the "many" non-apostolic companions Mark has prepared the audience to encounter and among the several younger people mentioned in Mark's Passion.

Regardless of how many youths are intended, he or they may mitigate that perennial concern about who witnessed what that night while the apostles slept. Whether one youth or two, these arguments reinforce the “face value” interpretation of the youth in the tomb as a human being, rather than a “wink-wink-nod-nod” reference to an angel, the kind of being whom other gospels place at the tomb.