An Odd Inclusion

Mark 14:51-52 is an odd inclusion in an otherwise normal Jesus scenario. When we look at the statement found in these two verses, we must ask an important question. Why did they think this information was important enough to include?

When taken as a whole, the four gospels display a stoic and highly concentrated style of writing. In other words: the writers did not spend a lot of effort writing about collateral issues and people. They stuck to the topic and were often stingy with the facts. Many details were omitted from the writing of the gospels insomuch that we, the seekers of truth, are impressed with the random bit of information.

For instance, women in the gospels seem of such low esteem that their names are omitted. When a writer of a gospel includes a name, or how the woman is related to the topic at hand, we sit forward and pay attention. If they thought it was that important, we also think it is important – and we want to know why.

Mark 14, and especially the latter verses of the chapter, are dedicated to the disposition of the protagonist. By this I mean, the story focuses on the prayers in the garden and the betrayal by Judas. Speaking collaterally, the disciples are included but then reduced to the three that Jesus took with him to watch while he prayed. Then, Christ and the three returned to the others. That leaves only the introduction of the antagonist leading those interested in Jesus' capture.

That is all there is. Many women often followed with Jesus and the disciples, but they are excluded from this story. Many church elders followed Jesus regularly. They, too, are excluded. It was commonplace that anywhere Jesus went the multitudes followed, as well as the sick and infirm seeking to be healed. None of these are present in the story of Jesus' betrayal and arrest. It seems the writers did this deliberately. It is as if they wanted the story to only be about these core facts.

And yet . . . one rogue fact seems to slip in under the radar. What are we to make of such an inclusion? We know the Bible had parts of it censored and edited. If it was not a case of poor editing, then it must be a deliberate inclusion. If the writers wanted this fact known, we must conclude they thought it was important to the story. There was one follower at the arrest who was not a named disciple.

Those who arrested Jesus had been invested with the authority to do so. They had weapons and with them came the real possibility of arrest, torture, and punishment. In the face of this, everyone fled, including the young man without an identity. We know who Jesus was in the story, we know who the disciples were in the story, but the young follower is a mystery.

Is there any way to determine who the mystery man might have been? Let us turn our collective hand to the case. We will sleuth it out together. Our first clue is what the young man wore. Everyone else there wore normal clothing that included shoes, a head-covering, the Tallith or upper cloak, a girdle, the Chaluq or under-dress, and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering. The young man, on the other hand, was naked. All he had to cover his nakedness was a single linen cloth.

Now we must turn our attention to the attitudes of that culture toward nakedness. We must also consider if the linen cloth was commonly obtainable or an item of some value.

Jewish views on nudity in late antiquity were clearly negative. A person's nakedness was considered as their 'shame.' However, nakedness was also associated with the innocence of children and with extreme poverty. We note in the parable of the good Samaritan, a story of a man who was robbed, that the robbers had “stripped him of his clothes.”

So, who was the naked nameless man, and just how had he come by the linen cloth that covered him? What are the possibilities? He could have been a self-styled prophet who, in the literal and visual style of early prophets, presaged the death and burial of Christ with a body wrap. He could have been a young man entwined with a lover who became curious about all the noise.

Is there any indication of identity from the Bible itself? Consider this. Amos 2:16 says, “And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day.” I add this as a reference to the young man in the garden. Was he 'courageous among the mighty?' Who were the mighty in Jesus' day, and who might have been the bravest? Could it have been a Roman soldier, or the like, who could not afford for his identity to be known? Could it have been, and this is wild speculation on my part, a high ranking official such as, say, Pilate himself?

And lastly, consider this. What if the young rich man finally sold all that he had, threw his last worldly possession, a linen cloth, around his naked body, and came to follow Christ, albeit a bit late in the game. What if the linen cloth had been left behind by those who arrested Jesus and later recovered by one of the disciples. What if that disciple, being rich, would later have Jesus' body buried in his own grave, and what if he used that recovered cloth to wrap the body.

Whichever possibility we are inclined toward, the fact stands that the writers of the gospels were spartan in their inclusion of information. Either the event or the person was important enough to merit inclusion.