Mark 14,51-52 and Coptic Hagiography How late and with what uncertainty it came to be suspected that the author lay concealed in Mark 14:51 (Theodore Zahn, 1899) One of the enduring riddles in the exegesis of the New Testament has been the identity of the neanivsko" in Mark 14,51-52. There has been much debate with regard to the identity of the neanivsko", ranging from informed guesses to bizarre identifications, used only to further the particular cause of the ex- egete. Many modern biblical commentaries simply state that the neanivsko" is to be identified with the evangelist and no more is said. One might well be forgiven for believing that this identification is simply the product of the 19th century school of biblical criticism that saw in every verse a secret, or even obvious, motive of the author, designed to convey some sort of information about the literary, social or theological standpoint of the author. In fact, we can now establish that the identification of the neanivsko" of 14,51-52 with the Evangelist lies not in the minds of 19th century exegetes, but really much deeper, even to the 13th century. The first responses to the question of the identity of the neanivsko" seem to be random suggestions, based on supposed correlations with traditions of other New Testament figures. Thus we find the first identification of the neanisko" with James ‘the brother of the Lord’ in the Panarion ( ) of Epipha- 1 v nius of Salamis. This suggestion is put forward by Epiphanius as part of a meditation on the ascetical life of James; this ‘brother of the Lord’ wore but a threadbare sheet, that same sheet which was left by him in the garden. Am- brose uses a similar method, but in his mind it is not the sheet that tells us of the neanivsko"’s identity, but rather his age, leading Ambrose to suggest, not James, but rather John the Evangelist (2). The correlation between the identi- fication of the neanivsko" and developing hagiography is already manifest, but the question for such writers is not really the identification of the neanisko" himself, but rather how the subject of their writing can be identi- v fied with this otherwise unknown witness to the Passion. Aquinas tells us of further suggestions that follow this mode of identification (3); Bede also sees in the neanivsko", the young disciple John, as does Gregory (4). Others were keen to maintain his anonymity; both Theophylact (5) and Victor (6) simply (1) The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (ed. F. WILLIAMS) (Leiden 1994) 640 (Books II and III [Sects 47-80, De Fide], Anacephalaeosesis VII, Against Antidicomarians 13.2-3). (2) Commentary of St. Ambrose on Twelve Psalms (Dublin 2000) 86-87. (3) THOMAS AQUINAS, Catena Aurea (ed. J.G.F. – J. RIVINGTON) (London 1842) II, 299. (4) ST. GREGORY THE GREAT, Morals on the Book of Job (London 1844) II, 49. (5) AQUINAS, Catena Aurea, II, 299 and Migne, Scripturae Sacrae Cursus Completus (Paris 1839) XXII, 202. (6) POSSINUS, Catena Græcorum patrum in Evangelium secundum Marcum (Rome 1673) 326.