¹ B. SAUNDERSON, "Gethsemane: the missing witness", Bib 70 (1989) 224-233 in an erudite consideration of the young man’s clothing as described and of the state in which he may be supposed to have fled would diminish the dramatic impression of both as conveyed by a strictly, or superficially, literal reading.

² A. VANHOYE, "La fuite du jeune homme nu (Mc 14,51-52)", Bib 52 (1971) 403, and H. FLEDDERMANN, "The flight of a naked young man (Mark 14:51-52)", CBQ 41 (1979) 413, 414, judiciously review this approach.

³ VANHOYE, "La fuite", 404.

⁴ FLEDDERMANN, "The flight", 417-418.

⁵ R. SCROGGS – K. L. GROFF, "Baptism in Mark: dying and rising with Christ", JBL 92 (1973) 531-548.

⁶ VANHOYE, "La fuite", 406.

⁷ Cf. V. TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London ²1966) 561.

⁸ See E. BEST, Mark: the Gospel as Story (Edinburgh 1983) 26.

⁹ Ibid. 26.

¹⁰ VANHOYE, "La fuite", 404. Cf. F. NEIRYNCK, "La fuite du jeune homme en Mc 14.51-52", ETL 55 (1979) 43-66, esp. 53.

¹¹ R. E. BROWN, The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (London 1994) I, 298.

¹² Ibid,.

¹³ If, as is probable, this "other disciple" is to be identified as the beloved disciple, the same source of confidence may explain his unique presence as a male follower at the place of crucifixion (John 19,25-27).

¹⁴ Cf. the remarks below, note 19.

¹⁵ BROWN, Death of the Messiah, I, 593.

¹⁶ The supposition does not contradict John 12,2, since there might be safety in company or less hazard in an occasional appearance.

¹⁷ SAUNDERSON, "Gethsemane", 224-225.

¹⁸ A recent suggestion has been made to this effect from a different perspective regarding the whole family of Lazarus: B. P. ROBINSON, "The anointing by Mary of Bethany (John 12)", Downside Review, 399 (April, 1997) 103.

¹⁹ BROWN, Death of the Messiah, I, 266-267, 308, observing that Mark has the assailant a bystander, would see in the accounts an unwarranted development by way of his being made into a disciple to his final identification by name. The contrary consideration is that since the action though brave by ordinary standards was not considered praiseworthy, its attribution to Peter, if there were no grounds for it other than his impetuosity as otherwise represented (cf. ibid., 268), seems gratuitously derogatory. The fact that Mark records no rebuke would be consistent equally with a hypothesis of circumspection as with the assailant’s having actually been a simple bystander, as it would have been difficult to record a rebuke without indicating that the perpetrator was one of Jesus’ party. John’s identification must be evaluated with the other concrete detail that he supplies relating to the episode and its aftermath, detail that lends psychological plausibility to Peter’s subsequent denial of association as generated by a lingering anxiety about whether he had been recognized in the Garden. Since the matter is incapable of definitive resolution, I would not urge the point beyond a suspicion of reticence on the part of the synoptic tradition as witnessed to in particular by Mark.

²⁰ BEST, Mark, 31.

²¹ SAUNDERSON, "Gethsemane", 230.

²² In view of the terminological discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels and John when describing grave-wrapping in the same burial, that of Jesus, it is unprofitable to attempt to compare sindwn here with how John depicts Lazarus as wrapped in the tomb. On the one hand, John’s description of Lazarus’ grave-clothes does not specify how his trunk was wrapped. On the other, the young man in the garden – if indeed wearing a garb evocative of burial – could hardly, as a practical matter, have had his limbs tightly bound and presumably, on the same count, would not have had a face-wrapping (though Mark’s description of dress and events would not formally exclude the latter).

²³ The so-called Secret Gospel of Mark would portray Lazarus as so dressed in the aftermath of his raising (M. SMITH, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark [Cambridge, Mass. 1973] Plate III) but its evidence does not seem worth adducing in view of the doubt that must be entertained as well about its independence on this point of Mark 14,51 and about the authenticity of the letter of Clement in which it is communicated. The issues are judiciously reviewed in R. E. BROWN, "The relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth Gospel", CBQ 36 (1974) 466-485.

²⁴ As in the suggested reconstruction by R. T. FORTNA, The Gospel of Signs (Cambridge 1970) 85-86.