Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SaintCog · 09-13-2005, 03:54 PM

...yeah, you know who I'm talkin about - Mark 14.51-2. What's the deal with this guy, and why was it included in the gospel? I think I've heard most hypotheses but I find none of them persuasive:

1. This is John Mark, the author of the gospel, including an autobiographical detail (yeah right, and the evidence for that is...).

2. It accentuatues the motif of abandonment, i.e. not even the shame of nakedness could keep this guy from abandoning Jesus. This is fine I guess, except that the motif of abandonment would not have been significantly less pronounced absent this detail. Furthermore, it does nothing to explain the odd details - why was the guy wearing nothing but a linen cloth. Baptism initiation maybe? But there is nothing else in the gospel that mentions Jesus baptizing people.

3. The Secret Gospel of Mark is intriguing, but absent more solid factual information on the alleged "discovery" of this fragment I think it would be best to refrain from using it as an exegetical tool.

4. This is an esoteric local tradition that only those in the Markan community would have understood - something akin to an inside joke, absent the joke. The significance of the naked man was lost soon after it was written. This is of course totally plausible, except that it's hardly a satisfying answer for exegetes. So I simply refuse to accept that answer.

Am I missing anything here? Have any other explanations been put forward? Does anyone else have an idea what this guy's deal is?

Cheers,
SC

Roland · 09-13-2005, 05:29 PM

Could he be the same man the women encounter in Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning - having now found a white robe to clothe himself in? Perhaps Mark never expected him to be seen as an angel at all, as the later gospel writers clearly thought he was, but just a person - perhaps himself, which might explain why the story had never been told until he decided to break the silence by writing his account (the women having run away in fear and kept silence).

Zeichman · 09-13-2005, 05:42 PM

Gerd Theissen argues this is an actual person taken from an early Passion account. I'm not sure I'm convinced. I think an amalgamation between #1 and the one Roland says is the best explanation.

Toto · 09-13-2005, 05:58 PM

last thread on the naked young man in Mark

SaintCog · 09-13-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

last thread on the naked young man in Mark

Hmmm....ok, sorry. I'm new to this discussion group. I guess I should go back through the thread history and determine whether a topic has been previously addressed before posting a new thread. My bad.

Cheers,
SC

Toto · 09-13-2005, 06:36 PM

No problem, it happens all the time. Welcome to the Forum.

SaintCog · 09-13-2005, 07:59 PM

OK, well just to throw my two cents into a discussion that died several months ago, I think Spin is dead on with the intertextual Amos argument, which somehow I had never heard before today.

1. It appears that Mark uses Amos elsewhere as an intertextual reference for his Passion narrative (e.g. Amos 8.9/Mark 15.33)

2. Immediately prior to the abandonment scene, we are alerted that scripture is about to be fulfilled in Jesus' arrest (Mark 14.49). Granted, this can and has been interpreted as Jesus indicating that scripture is being fulfilled in the larger sense of his being betrayed, arrested and crucified. But I think the immediate context should not be overlooked as a prime candidate for scripture fulfillment. Jesus announces that scripture is about to be fulfilled and immediately afterwards scripture is fulfilled in Amos 2.14-16.

3. The larger context of the Amos passage appears to fit the motif of Jesus' disciples failing him - "Flight will fail the runner, the strong will not hold fast his strength, and the soldier will not save his soul. And the archer will not stand, and he who is swift on his foot will not escape, and the horseman will not save his soul. And the naked man will find his heart in power; he will be pursued on that day, says the lord" (Amos 2.14-16, trans. from Rahlf's LXX). - These are mostly examples of a person's salient characteristic failing him. Similarly, loyalty to one's teacher seems to be a significant trait of a disciple, which Jesus' disciples affirm verbally, but ultimately fail when put to the test (Mark 14.50). Then, of course, the naked guy tops this prophetic passage off (14.51-2).

Cheers,
SC

neilgodfrey · 09-15-2005, 09:25 PM

Does anyone know of the reasons behind the speculation the young man was a cipher for Paul?

Unless I'm dreaming I am sure I read some discussion among the learned along those lines elsewhere years ago but have not come across anything since. Obviously the speculation was not compelling but I am curious.

Thanks,
Neil

yalla · 09-16-2005, 01:35 AM

neilgodfrey wrote; ''Does anyone know of the reasons behind the speculation the young man was a cipher for Paul?''

Without having read the specific stuff to which you are referring I'll take a guess based on other speculations of the same nature.

They are probably trying to establish a connection between persons from the early days of Christianity and the later.
That way , however tenuous or speculative, they can somehow legitimate the "chain of transmission" of gospel material.

Similar stuff includes things like "Mark's sister knew Paul in Jerusalem'' [I can't remember the alleged basis for that one], "Onesimus the slave in Paul's Philemon is the bishop of somewhere named by Eusebius", "Rufinus and his bro [forget the name] the sons of Joe of Arimathea [? or maybe the bloke who carried the cross ?] are the guys mentioned in the greetings of one of Paul's letters" and others.

I like the last one. I actually found in a conservative encyclopaedia on Christianity a suggestion that this was real. And the blokes in Paul's letter are the sons of a woman who Paul refers to as his "mother". So....[follow the logic].

So the fellow who carried the cross was Paul's dad...because ,of course if "brother of the lord'' means James is sibling/kin to JC then "mother'' MUST mean gave birth to.

It's a fun game.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2005, 03:54 PM	#1
SaintCog Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 55	The naked guy ...yeah, you know who I'm talkin about - Mark 14.51-2. What's the deal with this guy, and why was it included in the gospel? I think I've heard most hypotheses but I find none of them persuasive: 1. This is John Mark, the author of the gospel, including an autobiographical detail (yeah right, and the evidence for that is...). 2. It accentuatues the motif of abandonment, i.e. not even the shame of nakedness could keep this guy from abandoning Jesus. This is fine I guess, except that the motif of abandonment would not have been significantly less pronounced absent this detail. Furthermore, it does nothing to explain the odd details - why was the guy wearing nothing but a linen cloth. Baptism initiation maybe? But there is nothing else in the gospel that mentions Jesus baptizing people. 3. The Secret Gospel of Mark is intriguing, but absent more solid factual information on the alleged "discovery" of this fragment I think it would be best to refrain from using it as an exegetical tool. 4. This is an esoteric local tradition that only those in the Markan community would have understood - something akin to an inside joke, absent the joke. The significance of the naked man was lost soon after it was written. This is of course totally plausible, except that it's hardly a satisfying answer for exegetes. So I simply refuse to accept that answer. Am I missing anything here? Have any other explanations been put forward? Does anyone else have an idea what this guy's deal is? Cheers, SC

09-13-2005, 05:29 PM	#2
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Could he be the same man the women encounter in Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning - having now found a white robe to clothe himself in? Perhaps Mark never expected him to be seen as an angel at all, as the later gospel writers clearly thought he was, but just a person - perhaps himself, which might explain why the story had never been told until he decided to break the silence by writing his account (the women having run away in fear and kept silence).

09-13-2005, 05:42 PM	#3
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Gerd Theissen argues this is an actual person taken from an early Passion account. I'm not sure I'm convinced. I think an amalgamation between #1 and the one Roland says is the best explanation.

09-13-2005, 05:58 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	last thread on the naked young man in Mark

09-13-2005, 06:36 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	No problem, it happens all the time. Welcome to the Forum.

09-13-2005, 07:59 PM	#7
SaintCog Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 55	OK, well just to throw my two cents into a discussion that died several months ago, I think Spin is dead on with the intertextual Amos argument, which somehow I had never heard before today. 1. It appears that Mark uses Amos elsewhere as an intertextual reference for his Passion narrative (e.g. Amos 8.9/Mark 15.33) 2. Immediately prior to the abandonment scene, we are alerted that scripture is about to be fulfilled in Jesus' arrest (Mark 14.49). Granted, this can and has been interpreted as Jesus indicating that scripture is being fulfilled in the larger sense of his being betrayed, arrested and crucified. But I think the immediate context should not be overlooked as a prime candidate for scripture fulfillment. Jesus announces that scripture is about to be fulfilled and immediately afterwards scripture is fulfilled in Amos 2.14-16. 3. The larger context of the Amos passage appears to fit the motif of Jesus' disciples failing him - "Flight will fail the runner, the strong will not hold fast his strength, and the soldier will not save his soul. And the archer will not stand, and he who is swift on his foot will not escape, and the horseman will not save his soul. And the naked man will find his heart in power; he will be pursued on that day, says the lord" (Amos 2.14-16, trans. from Rahlf's LXX). - These are mostly examples of a person's salient characteristic failing him. Similarly, loyalty to one's teacher seems to be a significant trait of a disciple, which Jesus' disciples affirm verbally, but ultimately fail when put to the test (Mark 14.50). Then, of course, the naked guy tops this prophetic passage off (14.51-2). Cheers, SC

09-15-2005, 09:25 PM	#8
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Does anyone know of the reasons behind the speculation the young man was a cipher for Paul? Unless I'm dreaming I am sure I read some discussion among the learned along those lines elsewhere years ago but have not come across anything since. Obviously the speculation was not compelling but I am curious. Thanks, Neil

09-16-2005, 01:35 AM	#9
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	neilgodfrey wrote; ''Does anyone know of the reasons behind the speculation the young man was a cipher for Paul?'' Without having read the specific stuff to which you are referring I'll take a guess based on other speculations of the same nature. They are probably trying to establish a connection between persons from the early days of Christianity and the later. That way , however tenuous or speculative, they can somehow legitimate the "chain of transmission" of gospel material. Similar stuff includes things like "Mark's sister knew Paul in Jerusalem'' [I can't remember the alleged basis for that one], "Onesimus the slave in Paul's Philemon is the bishop of somewhere named by Eusebius", "Rufinus and his bro [forget the name] the sons of Joe of Arimathea [? or maybe the bloke who carried the cross ?] are the guys mentioned in the greetings of one of Paul's letters" and others. I like the last one. I actually found in a conservative encyclopaedia on Christianity a suggestion that this was real. And the blokes in Paul's letter are the sons of a woman who Paul refers to as his "mother". So....[follow the logic]. So the fellow who carried the cross was Paul's dad...because ,of course if "brother of the lord'' means James is sibling/kin to JC then "mother'' MUST mean gave birth to. It's a fun game.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.