14:51 A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried to arrest him, 14:52 but he ran off naked, leaving his linen cloth behind.

Who was this young man?  Mark Strauss lists thirteen(!) possibilities.  Here are some of the contenders:

(a) Mark himself.  This is the traditional view.  Cole inclines to this view, as do Lange, Hendriksen and others.  This would then be Mark’s way of saying, “I was there,” without mentioning himself by name.  Zahn suggests that Mark:

‘paints a small picture of himself in the corner of his work.’  Another has likened it to ‘the fleeting appearance of Alfred Hitchcock in his films.’

We learn from Acts 12:12 that the meeting place of the Jerusalem church was in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. It possible that the upper room in which the Last Supper had been eaten was in the same place. Nothing could be more natural. So, it is possible that Mark was present during the Last Supper, and followed the company into the Garden of Gethsemane (slipping out when he should have been in bed, covered only by a linen sheet). This would explain how Mark knew about the travails of Jesus in the garden, when the disciples were all asleep.

The above is a summary of Barclay (DSB), who suggests an alternative scenario:

‘From John’s narrative we know that Judas left the company before the meal was fully ended. (Jn 13:30) It may be that it was to the upper room that Judas meant to lead the Temple police so that they might secretly arrest Jesus. But when Judas came back with the police, Jesus and his disciples were gone. Naturally there was recrimination and argument. The uproar wakened Mark. He heard Judas propose that they should try the garden of Gethsemane. Quickly Mark wrapped his bed-sheet about him and sped through the night to the garden to warn Jesus. But he arrived too late, and in the scuffle that followed was very nearly arrested himself.’

(b) A disciple.  This is Nelson’s favoured interpretation.  He offers the following in support:

First, the disciple is explicitly said to have been ‘following’ Jesus. And ‘following’ is exactly what the disciples are called to do throughout the Gospel.

Second, in fleeing, the disciple as a single individual epitomises all of Jesus’ disciples, who have abandoned him, just as Jesus predicted (Mk 14:27).

Third, in leaving everything behind, this follower becomes an ‘anti-disciple’, who contrasts those who left everything behind to follow Jesus in the first part of the Gospel.

Fourth, in wearing a linen cloth, the disciple has come ‘dressed for death.’ He has come ready to die with Jesus. Yet, like Peter, he ends up abandoning him.

Nelson may be correct in supposing this young man to have been a disciple.  But I do not think he can have been one of the Twelve.  For:

(i) he would hardly have attended the Last Supper dressed as he was.

(ii) we would expect a member of the Eleven to have been named.  He is here identified merely as ‘a certain young man’.

(ii) v50 informs that all the (Eleven) had fled.

France calls him an ‘anonymous sympathiser’.

In any case, I find some of the assumed symbolism somewhat implausible.  Nelson (along with others before him) proposes a link this young man with the young man at Jesus’ tomb – the first representing failed faith and the second restored faith.  The comparison then becomes a lesson for us all:

‘While we may be faithless and fail to follow Jesus – and may even flee from him – there is hope in the second man’s renewed apparel and his rumours of resurrection.

Who, then, is the young man?

We can see that he is deliberately nameless, for he is every man, every disciple. And he is a sign-post to the second man, who casts a redemptive shadow on his flight.’

I am not convinced by this attempted spiritualising of the text.  As Edwards writes, such an approach is:

‘uncharacteristically allegorical for Mark and subtle to the point of obscurity.’

Hurtado’s approach is a little more nuanced:

‘It is interesting to compare this scene of the young man’s flight, coming at the beginning of the events leading up to Jesus’ execution, with two other scenes later in the narrative. In Mk 15:46, Jesus’ naked corpse (his clothes having been taken from him by the soldiers, Mk 15:24) is clothed before burial in a “linen cloth,” the same term in Greek (sindon) used to describe the young man’s garment here in Mk 14:51–52. Thus, the young man in this scene unknowingly anticipates the burial of Jesus; the young man runs away, leaving his linen cloth, while Jesus goes to his death and to burial in another such cloth, perhaps a dramatic portrayal of the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death. Also, in Mk 16:5, at the tomb on the first Easter morning, another “young man” (to be taken no doubt as an angel, see note) announces that Jesus is risen from death. Perhaps Mark intended his readers to see this connection as well (only Mark describes the angel as a “young man”); one young man runs away, leaving Jesus to his death, but another, splendid “young man” wearing a “white robe” (16:5) declares Jesus’ triumph.’

Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) suggests that the young man could be Lazarus, and there were reasons enough for ‘protective anonymity’ in his case.

However, no ancient precedent has been found for such a practice of a writer thus identifying himself.  Moreover, according to Papias (ca. A.D. 130), Mark “neither heard the Lord nor followed him.  For such reasons, many regard this identification as doubtful.

(c) A curious neighbour. According to this view, a young man has been awakened by the commotion, thrown a piece of clothing over himself, and come to see what was gonig on.  Something like this was entertained by some of the older commentators, including Matthew Poole:

‘Probably it was some young man who, being in his bed, and hearing the noise of the multitude going by his lodging with swords and staves, got up, slipped on his night garment, and followed them, to see what the matter was; and they having apprehended Christ, he followed them.’

Matthew Henry adopts a similar view.

This theory however, fails to explain why the authorities tried to arrest the young man.

(c) Someone with whom Jesus had a close relationship.  Some revisionists see in this text a reference to someone who was gay and with whom Jesus had a close relationship:

‘In The Savage Text Thatcher…points to the story recorded in Mark 14:51-52 of the young man who fled naked from the scene of Jesus’ arrest as another example of a possible reference to a gay character in the Gospels. He quotes Jennings’ statement that this text is ‘an apparent allusion to the typical recipient of homoerotic attention (the nude youth) in Hellenistic pederastic culture at a decisive moment in the passion of Jesus, and with the suggestion of a particularly close relationship between Jesus and this youth’ and comments ‘Jesus, we may speculate, was just the sort of company with whom a sexually exploited young man could relax and feel accepted.’ (p. 33)

Davie, Martin. Studies on the Bible and same-sex relationships since 2003 (p. 155). Gilead Books Publishing. Kindle Edition.

This theory might attract some support from The Secret Gospel of Mark, purportedly discovered by Morton Smith in 1958, except that this is widely considered to be a modern forgery.  Otherwise, the theory has all the hallmarks of a piece of eisegesis.

(d) An allegorical symbol of Jesus. In this view, the young man is a vignette of Jesus himself.  Both are ‘arrested’ (kratein) Both wear a linen cloth, and both ‘escape’ that cloth (Jesus through resurrection).

Gundry puts it like this:

‘The crowd’s seizing the young man parallels their having seized Jesus (14:46). The young man’s wearing a linen cloth anticipates the linen cloth in which Jesus will be buried (15:46, where “the linen cloth” recalls the mention here of “a linen cloth”). The young man’s leaving behind the linen cloth anticipates Jesus’ resurrection, portrayed as a leaving behind of his linen burial cloth. And Mark will call the angel who in Jesus’ empty tomb announces Jesus’ resurrection—Mark will call that angel “a young man” (16:5–7) to recollectively associate the present young man with Jesus’ resurrection. The closeness of the young man’s following (“with Jesus”) supports this association. All in all, then, this episode symbolically anticipates a reversal of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial by virtue of the resurrection. Mark’s mentioning the young man’s following with Jesus before mentioning that the crowd led Jesus away shows how eager Mark is to anticipate this reversal.’

This strikes me as singularly implausible.  Apart from any other consideration, Jesus would hardly be described as fleeing naked (in shame).  And, as Witherington remarks, Mark shows no inclination toward allegorising in his narrative.

Conclusion

Although some of the proposals summarised above are more plausible than others, certainty is not possible as to the identity of this young man.

As to the purpose of this incident in the narrative, Schnabel suggests:

‘Mark included this story to underline the complete desertion of Jesus. The flight of the young man caps the account of Jesus’ arrest, and ‘the motif’s vivid picture of abject terror and shameful nudity in cowardly flight admirably reinforces a scene in which the ruling emotion is the desperate impulse to save one’s own skin, the mood of “Every man for himself!” ’ (Jackson, ‘Youth’, p. 286).’

Edwards, similarly:

‘Mark’s leaving him unidentified appears to be intentional and purposeful. The young man represents all who flew in desperation when mayhem broke out at the arrest of Jesus. This particular story speaks for all present. His lack of identity also invites readers to examine their own readiness to abandon Jesus. The prophecy of Amos has come to pass among all of Jesus’ followers: “ ‘Even the bravest of warriors will flee naked on that day,’ declares the LORD” (Amos 2:16; also 1 Macc 10:64).’

Brown (The Death of the Messiah) has a very full discussion of the alternatives.  He concludes by agreeing that this is a story of desertion:

‘His attempt to follow exemplifies his wanting to be true to Jesus and not flee like the others. But the disciples had been warned by Jesus in 14:38 to pray not to enter into peirasmos, i.e., the great struggle that he himself was going to have to face. This young man’s attempt to follow Jesus into peirasmos is a miserable failure; for when seized as Jesus had been, he is so anxious to get away that he leaves in the hands of his captors the only clothes he wears and chooses the utter disgrace of fleeing naked—an even more desperate flight than that of the other disciples.’

France, similarly:

‘The ignominious flight of this anonymous sympathiser serves in the narrative context to underline the complete failure of Jesus’ friends to support him when the moment came. ‘

Hurtado draws the following conclusion:

‘The possible allusion to Amos 2:16, coupled with Jesus’ description of the arrest as a fulfillment of prophecy (14:49), combine to make the main point of the story, that Jesus’ arrest, though its immediate cause was human treachery, was actually part of the divine plan for redemption.’

See this by John Nelson.