A Certain Young Man
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/14>
I ask you to use your
imagination for a moment. You are watching a movie, as true and
any recounting can be, about a man whose character and actions
are being told sympathetically but who has enemies in the local
government. The movie comes to the scene where his enemies have
him arrested and he is arrested after dark in a park based upon
information from a paid informant who has been close to him for
many years.
As he is being lead away
a young man dressed only in his underwear starts to follow.
Those arresting officers immediately try to arrest the young man
but all they can do is get a hold of his underwear, which tears
off and he runs away naked and gets away.
There were also some
friends of our hero there but they ran away also. One of them
was correctly identified as a friend of his but was able to deny
it. Those who had him arrested do have volunteers who are
willing to perjure themselves that they know of all kinds of
crimes but it is determined their stories will not stand up in
court.
And in the next scene
those who had him arrested are quite upset that they can not find
any of the witnesses to what was happening in the park.
I have a simple question,
what do you think that scene is portraying? What incident,
perhaps cause for arrest, is the director trying to show in this
discrete manner.
The points that the scene
makes are correct. There was a point to be made by indicating
the man was young. There was a point to be made by indicating
both that he tried to follow and that they tried to arrest him
also. There are points to be made by noting his being nearly
undressed and that when he does get away he is completely naked.
Further that the person
arrested had his men friends with him and that they got away is
part of the scene as is the problem those who had him arrested
needing to find witnesses to what by implication did happen in
the park. That their only "witnesses" obviously did not know
what the charge was.
Is there anyone reading
this who does not see this scene as portraying an arrest, perhaps
based upon entrapment with the help of the paid informant, on a
sodomy charge? Possibly the young man thought he was safe in
first following and then realized that he had been set up and was
to be arrested also and ran away.
I see no other
interpretation of such a scene. I would think it would come to
mind for most people. So why did I go through all of this?
It seems this particular
scene is missing from very many narrative, radio, TV and even
movie recountings of the entire story of the life of our hero.
And absent this one scene many aspects of his life story and his
character do not make sense and in fact there is an entirely
different twist put upon this man's life.
I direct your attention
to Mark chapter 14 verses 51 and 52
New Jerusalem Bible
51 A young man followed with nothing on but a linen cloth. They
caught hold of him
52 but he left the cloth in their hands and ran away naked.
King James Bible
51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen
cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold of
him:
52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
for this lost scene from this most common of stories. You will
recognize the rest of the scene as the story of the arrest in the
Garden of Gethsemane and the arrest of Jesus and the comments of
the Scribes and Pharisees who had him arrested. The scene with
the young man is inserted where it belongs in accordance with the
narrative of Mark.
This does put a much
different light upon the story as it is usually told to say the
least. And yet it does more. Consider the long standing
Christian tradition that Jesus never married despite the strong
custom of the time. Consider the tradition that although Mary
Magdeline was a prostitute that Jesus never, shall we as, knew
her in a carnal way. Both those traditions easily fall into
place.
Consider many other
references to his enemies trying to catch him at something but
strangely, although it is supposed to be his preachings that were
the source of the animosity that they could never catch him in
those teachings. And in practice, nothing he was preaching
appears to be in serious contradiction Mosaic law and his
assertions were quite to the contrary.
Just what was it the
guardians of public morality and virtue thought he was doing or
saying that was blameworthy? Of course this is the explanation
that he was gaining more power than the priests themselves but
that is no more supportable than are the direct contradictions to
that possibility.
Consider he was able to
put aside an allegation of immorality with a woman so simply and
finally and without it being used against him to discredit him.
That the allegation is made in the first place indicates it did
have a negative connotation in that society. It was certainly
not a helpful thing to be accused of doing.
Yet with a simple
statement he is able to quash that issue and his enemies do not
use it either. Perhaps people have changed but consider this,
with the same allegation being made against Senators Kennedy and
Frank, which could so easily have his denial accepted? What
famous person could so easily have gotten out from under such a
charge? Maybe people have changed. It is always questionable to
put modern feelings on people in other times. Yet this charge is
made against many in the Old Testament, it is made today, it is
hard to see it did not titillate something in human nature at
that point in time.
Another point is the
motivation of Judas as the paid informant and long time associate
of Jesus. The usual explanation is that he was greedy and would
do anything for money. But we note he also kept the funds for
the group. To me that appears to be a serious lapse in
judgement.
Here is a person who is
of such weak nature that he will betray a friend of three years
who he has spent most of that time working with for money. And
yet he concealed his nature so well that he was trusted not to
disappear with the community funds? Something is wrong with that
image.
Judas is of somewhat
questionable character having at one point and perhaps still an
Iscaria, an order of assassins who had sworn to free Israel. But
then he was not only personally trusted but also with money so he
must have had something going for him but it is not apparent from
the Gospel.
And then the timing of
the betrayal is not as important as the betrayal itself. If he
were greedy and did not simply disappear with the community
funds then his motivation was not greed. Rather he chooses
betrayal of the leader of his group while there are eleven others
whose wrath he had to risk. They lost big time with the arrest
of Jesus. They act like wanted men, they are in hiding, their
leader is gone and there is one man responsible for it all.
There was no inspired
hindsight involved. Judas had to have expected some sort of
violent response even though it did not materialize. The act
itself does not make sense unless there was some overwhelming
thought or emotion that overruled his judgement. It is open to
speculation as to what that might have been as there is no
indication of what it is in the gospel.
But consider an essential
part of any story is left out whereas the motivations of others
are mentioned at least in passing in the same gospel. They are
not dwelled upon as is done today they are mentioned in passing
with words such as "for he had.." or "because her son was..."
But when it comes to a pivotal point in the story? Silence.
Something has been left
out. We find a clear statement that Judas initiated the betrayal
by approaching the priests, not vice versa. In this clearest and
oldest Gospel of Mark there is no mention of any payment, no
forty pieces of silver. And after the arrest there is no further
mention of him.
Now let me make the wild
speculation. Somehow there is a connection between, Jesus, the
certain young man, and Judas. Given the description of the young
man's actions on the assumption this was entrapment in a
homosexual liaison. Note at first the man follows those making
the arrest. Why would he not expect to be arrested? Because he
was part of the sting. It is clearly stated in Mark that Judas
not only approached the priests with the idea of betrayal but
that he went away "to look for a way of betraying him when the
opportunity should occur."
Thus the priests are not
involved, the entire operation is being planned by Judas.
Therefore the only way the young man could have thought he would
not be arrested would be from contact with Judas. And now we
have Judas arranging a homosexual tryst between the two and
leading the young man to believe he would not be arrested. This
young man had to have been told something about the plot else
when the people sent by the priests came to conduct their arrest
he should have been as frightened as the Apostles and run away
immediately.
Consider that the young
man effectively trusted Judas with his life in this sting
operation. Here we have a stoning offense, a death penalty, and
he does not run away given all the opportunity he had to do so.
(Mark recounts significant conversation between Jesus and those
who arrested him including the famous ear lopping episode. It is
at least a minute gone by and certainly more.)
This person may or may
not have been previously acquainted with Jesus but he appears to
have been with Judas to exhibit such trust. One last wild
speculation, the three were in a love triangle and Judas was
eliminating the competition.
Certainly it has holes
but love provides a motivation that could overcome the fear of
the expected wrath of the other eleven apostles. That Jesus gave
Judas such responsibility and trust within the group despite his
one time and perhaps current membership in what we would call a
terrorist organization certainly indicates a more than passing
acquaintanceship. (Granted a man trained with a sword could best
guard the money but assassins are not swordsmen.) Where did this
trust come from and how did it arise? Mark is silent.
Of course there are
problems with this speculation. Mark is silent on Judas being
the treasurer of the group. Mark only introduces him as Judas
Iscariot and it is from records we find Iscariot denotes his
other group membership. And certainly in betraying Jesus he was
betraying the young man. That latter can be addressed as also
being part of love jealousy but that would be using jealousy to
explain everything that is not reasonable
But even without all of
the speculation look at what it does to the rest of the story.
The real crime they were going to use to get rid of him was
sodomy and that explains why they never could find witnesses
against him for that crime. Why when he is preaching that people
should be nice to each other and to trust in god and such was he
accused of being inspired by Beelzebub? It is not as though he as
though there is anything seriously radical about what is recorded
that would lead to such an accusation.
Unless, they had a
sinner, a sodomite who was teaching good works and healing and
all manner of things that a "sinner," one unclean in the eyes of
Yahweh God could not do. That was the blasphemy they could not
tolerate. And in that regard just what was his "blasphemy"? It
was not his words as they were commonly known and they could find
all the witnesses they wanted to his words. Mark clearly
recounts the accusations of the false witnesses they could muster
and those were rejected as not standing up before Pilate (in
court.)
Does this not clearly the
animosity he aroused that clearly can not be explained in any
other way.
Look at the rest of Mark.
Other than for a few words he answers no accusations but remains
silent. Mark recounts Pilate was surprised at the silence.
Yes, I can see surprise
too. Here is this traveling preacher using the best defense
technique when his accuser do not have a case, silence. Where
did this preacher get his legal training? Far from surprising,
it is the best strategy of all.
The priests knew they did
not have a case. It is clear from the words attributed to
Pilate, which Jesus heard, that he knew they had no case. The
only question is how he knew to keep his mouth shut.
So what was a story of a
teacher one one hand said to be god but who could not be
convicted of making that claim and crucified by the will of the
mob not on the charges, becomes one of a teacher of good who was
violating the religious laws of the time.
Consider his some of his
teachings, by their fruits ye shall know them -- not by their
(private) actions as public actions would be "their fruits." He
made a point of being with sinners and tax collectors and taught
they could do good as could a Samarian.
Now I have no interest in
portraying him as the first gay activist. Rather I would suggest
he was gay without guilt and went about his life simply making
the case it did not matter.
Obviously the
fundamentalists are going to scream about this speculation.
Certainly some gays will join in. Most professed Christians will
have more than a few negative words. Of course I am merely
speculating on the different impression you get when that one
scene is inserted where it belongs and look at it in context.
Further for purposes of
this discussion I have made references to miracles. I presume
miracles were retold in the style of exaggerating the import of a
good person in the manner we attribute our cultural icons with
every aspect of good character in absence of, even contrary to,
any evidence of same.
I have not clearly
pointed out every area that is complete speculation rather than
simple incorporation of the young man's existence, conditions and
actions. So yes, I am guilty in places of not being clear on the
difference.
And, if I also plead
guilty of violating centuries of traditional Christian teachings
about Jesus, I think I have exhausted the list of my failings in
this paper. In return, I ask only that you think about what I
have said before you respond. If you simply wish to add your
accusation of blasphemy to those of so many others please make an
effort to do a creative message.