Comments on: The Formerly Rich Young Man

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:16:11 +0000

I just came across your blog and think I’ll be back again…

Anyways, my NT prof in seminary, whose research focused on Greco-Roman influences in the NT texts, spent a good deal of time on this passage and argues that there is a case for clothing/robes as symbols of life and death, ala dying to one’s self and being clothed in Christ, and argues that the man who loses his clothes is actually the first martyr for Jesus and is resurrected (wearing a new robe) with Jesus at the tomb. He claims this fits Mark’s concern for discipleship. Not sure if I agree, but it’s another interpretation.

By: steph

steph — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:42:04 +0000

It wasn’t irrelevant to Mark. It was probably part of his historical tradition. For Matthew and Luke perhaps they found it embarrassing and decided it was not necessary to include it. They can’t have believed the detail to matter very much in the telling of the story.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:58:09 +0000

Fantastic post.

By: Halden

Halden — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:20:53 +0000

Well, I think there’s some semblance of more than just a very, very weak connection in that Jesus tells the rich man to sell all he has and follow him and the young man is reported to be following him and has nothing more than a sheet for clothes.

And I’m not for harmonizing the gospels or anything like that, but the fact that the other gospels note that the rich man was a “young man” certainly doesn’t hurt anything.

Not saying its iron-clad, merely that its a possibility.

By: Scott Coulter

Scott Coulter — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:16:58 +0000

Halden, you say the matter doesn’t turn on this — but isn’t the purported connection between the young naked man in Mark 14 and the rich man in Mark 10 very, very weak given kim’s observation? It’s still a nice idea, but I’m not sure the narrative truly and naturally leads the hearer or reader to this connection.

By: Scott Coulter

Scott Coulter — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:14:12 +0000

Why would it be included if it was irrelevant? Surely there was a reason to include it. Lots of other historical facts were left out by everyone (what color were Jesus’ eyes?). This detail matters to the telling of the story.

By: Scott Coulter

Scott Coulter — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:13:11 +0000

I don’t think the meanings are supposed to be “hidden”. This isn’t apocalyptic literature where you have to be in the “know” about certain symbols in order to read & understand. This is good literature in which an attentive reader (especially reading in the original language, I find) picks up on connections in the narrative. It’s just good storytelling. The Gospels are true (historically!) but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect them or find them to be well-told.

By: Halden

Halden — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:25:34 +0000

They may just not have known about it because the person who could have known about it first hand was Mark and all the other disciples had fled at that point. But whatever, I don’t really think this is important enough to debate about.

By: steph

steph — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:21:40 +0000

By ‘it’ I meant the naked young man verses which Matthew and Luke omit. I don’t think they saw it as symbolic but as an embarrassing historical irrelevance.

By: Halden

Halden — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:05:52 +0000

Umm yeah, there’s many literary and symbolic elements in the other gospels.

By: steph

steph — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:53:15 +0000

So is all history (in the NT) symbolic? Why did Matthew and Luke cut it out?

By: Halden

Halden — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:32:52 +0000

To be clear, I’m not questioning the historical truth of narrative or anything. I don’t think things must be fictionalized to be symbolic. The Lord of the text is also the Lord of history in my book.

By: steph

steph — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:27:52 +0000

It is interesting how over the years of biblical criticism, Christian scholars have perceived literary symbolism in the text and created arguments to justify assumptions that the texts are riddled with patterns and hidden meanings. If the young man fleeing naked isn’t a purely symbolic literary creation by Mark then he must be meant to reflect the young man at the tomb or Mark himself. For more bizarre scholarly speculation see Brown, Death of the Messiah and Collin, Mark. Why the desperation to avoid the possible plausibility of Mark’s historical sources? It is historically plausible that such an event would be remembered and recounted. There is evidence of similar derobings in other literature of the time which is to be expected considering the nature of the garments they wore and methods of wearing them. Not everyone wore knickers back then.

By: Halden

Halden — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:51 +0000

No, I realized that the terminology was different, I don’t think the matter turns on this. Nor do I simply mean to exonerate the young man of Mark 14. But clearly there is some sort of distinction, albeit slight between him and the other disciples.

Also I think that the young man sitting in the tomb clothed in a white robe in Mark 15 is relevant here too. If anything that’s the strongest connection to the reference in Mark 14. The disciple community, represented, I think, by the author is now raised with Christ, clothed anew.

By: kim fabricius

kim fabricius — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:02:16 +0000

Nice try, Halden, but the essential thing that is throwing you here is that Mark 10:17 says nothing about the rich man being young; you're importing the neaniskos of Matthew 19:20 into the Markan narrative. Moreover, I think it is crucial to the Markan narrative that all the followers of Jesus forsake him and flee. That the neaniskos of Mark 14:51 flees buck naked is not to his exoneration but to the utter shamlessness of the abandonment of Jesus. I would recommend Ched Myer's comment on Mark 14:51-52 (in Binding the Strongman: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus [New York: Orbis Books, 1988], p. 369): "This little episode sees the introduction of two new terms: 'young man' (neaniskos) and 'linen cloth' (sindon). These terms appear again only in the 'second' epilogue: Joseph of the council wraps the dead body of Jesus in a sindon (15:46), and the neaniskos appears at the tomb of Jesus... The young man, who flees (ephugen) after the authorities try to seize him along with Jesus, is a symbol of the discipleship community as a whole, which has just itself fled (14:50). He escapes naked (gumnos), indicative of shame, leaving behind a cloth that becomes a 'burial garment' for Jesus."