Was Mark "young man" mentioned in Passion Gospel?

[PacoG]

On another note: correct me if I am wrong, but the “young man following him who was covered by nothing but a linen cloth” who ran off naked is supposed to be Mark the Evangelist, right? I remember seeing an episode of “Life is Worth Living” where Bishop Sheen says that.

 

[benedictgal]

On another note: correct me if I am wrong, but the “young man following him who was covered by nothing but a linen cloth” who ran off naked is supposed to be Mark the Evangelist, right? I remember seeing an episode of “Life is Worth Living” where Bishop Sheen says that.

Yes, it was. I always thought that this was a rather strange footnote in St. Mark’s account of the Passion.

 

[LilyM]

On another note: correct me if I am wrong, but the “young man following him who was covered by nothing but a linen cloth” who ran off naked is supposed to be Mark the Evangelist, right? I remember seeing an episode of “Life is Worth Living” where Bishop Sheen says that.

Mark? I always thought it was meant to be John - Mark wasn’t even one of the Apostles, so he probably wouldn’t have been there. And John being the youngest, the ‘young man’ description best fits him.

 

[PacoG]

Mark? I always thought it was meant to be John - Mark wasn’t even one of the Apostles, so he probably wouldn’t have been there. And John being the youngest, the ‘young man’ description best fits him.

St. Mark was not one of the Twelve. However, he is traditionally thought to be one of the 70 apostles sent out by Christ in Luke 10:1 (Remember that Apostle has three different meanings: the Seventy in Luke 10:1, the Twelve [including Judas’ replacement Matthias] and St. Paul.) However, tradition holds that Mark is the young man.

It couldn’t be John because John is mentioned by name as one of the three apostles Jesus took with him to the Garden (Peter, James and John). John was already part of the action.

 

[LilyM]

St. Mark was not one of the Twelve. However, he is traditionally thought to be one of the 70 apostles sent out by Christ in Luke 10:1 (Remember that Apostle has three different meanings: the Seventy in Luke 10:1, the Twelve [including Judas’ replacement Matthias] and St. Paul.) However, tradition holds that Mark is the young man.

It couldn’t be John because John is mentioned by name as one of the three apostles Jesus took with him to the Garden (Peter, James and John). John was already part of the action.

True, but being an embarrassing event, of course Mark doesn’t give the identity of the young man, whoever he may’ve been. If it WAS John he wouldn’t have named him as the naked young man any more than if it had indeed been himself.

Point is, only the 12 were at the Last Supper, per Matthew. There’s no reason why any apart from the 12 would’ve been in Gethsemane

I’d say it has to be one of the 12, and the most likely candidate is John.

 

[PacoG]

True, but being an embarrassing event, of course Mark doesn’t give the identity of the young man, whoever he may’ve been. If it WAS John he wouldn’t have named him as the naked young man any more than if it had indeed been himself.

Point is, only the 12 were at the Last Supper, per Matthew. There’s no reason why any apart from the 12 would’ve been in Gethsemane

I’d say it has to be one of the 12, and the most likely candidate is John.

Nothing in the pious TRADITION bears it out as being John. The pious TRADITION of the Catholic Church holds it to be Mark.

This is the Catholic Church not a Law & Order episode. Tradition governs over speculation.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[losh14]

Nothing in the pious TRADITION bears it out as being John. The pious TRADITION of the Catholic Church holds it to be Mark.

So is this Mark just self-interjecting to say “I was there, too!”
I hadn’t noticed this part of the Passion narrative before, and my wife asked me in the car why there was note of a “streaker” at Gethsemane.

 

[NotWorthy]

Nothing in the pious TRADITION bears it out as being John. The pious TRADITION of the Catholic Church holds it to be Mark.

This is the Catholic Church not a Law & Order episode. Tradition governs over speculation.

I’d change that to “tradition”, rather than “Tradition”. Although it is the earliest tradition that it was Mark, I wouldn’t etch it in stone.

BTW, wasn’t the upper room part of a house that belonged to Mark’s family (according to Christian tradition)? That would certainly place him in the vicinity of Jesus and his followers.

 

[NotWorthy]

True, but being an embarrassing event, of course Mark doesn’t give the identity of the young man, whoever he may’ve been. If it WAS John he wouldn’t have named him as the naked young man any more than if it had indeed been himself.

Point is, only the 12 were at the Last Supper, per Matthew. There’s no reason why any apart from the 12 would’ve been in Gethsemane

I’d say it has to be one of the 12, and the most likely candidate is John.

But John was with Jesus the whole time, even at the Cross.

 

[lovemysix]

Yes, I have to say that listening to the passion reading yesterday, it did strike me as very funny that there was a streaker in the story My five year old started laughing; I was just impressed he was paying that much attention! As I’ve said many times before, God certainly has a great sense of humor

The priest spoke about the white cloth as being symbolic of baptism, and the fact that the naked young man was running away from it was symbolic of how we all fail in our baptismal vows at some time.

I think one reason story line sticks out so much is because it’s just kind of dropped into the passion story. It really jumps out at you!

 

[David_Zampino]

Pious tradition does suggest that it is Mark, himself demonstrating his presence at the event. Otherwise, why add such a detail? Certainly not set in stone – but equally certainly a distinct possibility.

 

[NotWorthy]

Pious tradition does suggest that it is Mark, himself demonstrating his presence at the event. Otherwise, why add such a detail? Certainly not set in stone – but equally certainly a distinct possibility.

I posted this on another thread similar to this one, but it bears mentioning again.

Mark was written to the Romans, right? If a Roman guard was caught sleeping on the job, he was sent home naked in shame. The Apostles and Disciples participating in the Passover were to remain awake throughout the evening and keep watch (according to Jewish custom). You’ll see in Luke’s and Mark’s Gospel the frequent urging of Jesus to “Watch”.

I don’t know, maybe Mark was keeping watch for the approach of the Jews and failed to alert the Apostles maybe? This symbolism would have been understood by the Roman audience.

 

[Cair_Paravel]

This verse struck me as well - I can’t say that it ever caught my attention before yesterday. Today, I found this story which, though certainly apocryphal, weaves together the scriptural facts quite well:

The home with the upper room in which Jesus and the disciples celebrated the Passover belonged to the mother of Mark. This explains why the disciples continued to use this space after Pentecost (Acts 12). Mark could even have been the man carrying the jar of water (Mark 14:13). This would constitute another self-deprecating cameo, since carrying water was women’s work. Judas initially returned to this home with the soldiers, but finding Jesus gone, headed for Gethsemane. Mark, aware of the immediate danger, left his home quickly to alert Jesus and the others, which explains why he suddenly shows up in the story wearing only a loin cloth.

 

[Mattjolley]

All my bible’s notes point out for this line of scripture is the stark difference between the first disciples who left everything to follow Jesus, and this young man who leaves literally everything to desert him.

 

[LilyM]

But John was with Jesus the whole time, even at the Cross.

Do any of the Gospels say that John never left Jesus’ side at any time? Perhaps he had a change of heart and went back to Jesus’ side at a later point.

 

[NotWorthy]

Do any of the Gospels say that John never left Jesus’ side at any time? Perhaps he had a change of heart and went back to Jesus’ side at a later point.

You mean once he put some clothes on?

Do any of the ancient traditions claim its John?

 

[LilyM]

You mean once he put some clothes on?

Do any of the ancient traditions claim its John?

I thought I’d read the John theory somewhere, but I may be confused because ‘Mark’ is more properly John-Mark - and is referred to as such by some writers.