Okay… hear me out…
The little guy running naked while Jesus is being arrested from the Gospel of Mark + the Beloved Disciple from the Gospel of John = Same guy.
Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about anything, I’m just a guy who sees some gay shit* in the Bible and unlike a lot of Christians, I am Intrigued instead of Appalled.
*Yes, there will be gay shit in this post eventually.
So both of these figures, interestingly, are generally seen as the respective authors humbly not identifying himself. But literally the only reason people think that is because both of these characters are unnamed. It's a huge speculation. The "titles" of the gospels (which I will be using here) were later additions based on early Christians' guesses of who the author was/who the unnamed guy was, but neither guess can be backed up in the texts themselves.
Mark’s Streaker appears in two whole verses following Jesus’ arrest in the garden: “A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.” Mark 14:51-52
We're given no other introduction to this character--we don't know why he's here, what he's up to, if he's part of Jesus' retinue, or even if Jesus knows this guy. Nothing. It feels like a weird editing error that somehow made it's way into the final draft.
So I don’t know anything about Greek, but I can look up what the words are in Greek and see what we’re dealing with. This person is identified as “neaniskos” (“young man”) and the linen cloth is a “sindona.” (This will be important later.)
On the other hand, the Beloved Disciple makes a whole handful of appearances in John. His first appearance is leaning on Jesus’ chest during the last supper (and if your translation says he’s sitting next to him you should shake your Bible and say “you let me down you homophobe”), which, interestingly, is right before the arrest, so not too long before Mark’s Streaker shows up.
The Beloved Disciple does some other stuff after this, like at the cross he gets assigned to have Mary be his mother, he shows up at the tomb, he hangs out after Jesus comes back to life. In the last chapter, in John 21:24, it says that the book is written based on the testimony of the Beloved Disciple, which, okay, but that chapter wasn't even written by the main writer of John, so like... who knows if the random bro who decided John needed an epilogue knows anything about how the rest of the book was written.
Relatively early Christian writers said the Beloved Disciple was the character John from the Synoptic Gospels (Mark/Matthew/Luke) because John isn’t in John. (And then they decided he wrote the book so it got named after him.) Which... the amount of faith these bros had in the author of John knowing anything about anything, let alone having the exact same character list as the Synoptics...
So that's everything about the Streaker and the Beloved Disciple in the canon gospels.
Outside of the canon, there's a gospel called the "Secret Gospel of Mark." We only know about it because this guy, Clement of Alexandria, wrote a letter about it in the 2nd or 3rd century, and he quoted some of it in his letter, and a medieval scribe made a half-finished copy of the letter, which was discovered in the 20th century*. So literally all we have of it are these quotations.
*see the FAQs at the bottom for more info about the legitimacy of Secret Mark, but for the purpose of this post, we're assuming it's legitimate.
Clem says that the author of Mark (who he thought was Mark himself) wrote two versions of Mark, one for the public, and a mystical longer version that was to be only studied in private, presumably by religious insiders.
So here's some of Clem's quote of the Secret Gospel:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there."
Okay, before I go further, just from this, we can tell that this is matching the story of Lazarus, who is from Bethany and has a sister, Mary (and also Martha, or something, that's a whole nother issue.) The story of Lazarus is ONLY in John in the canonical gospels, so this is already very interesting in that now this is purporting to be a Mark version of the Lazarus story.
And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.
Okay. First of all. That's the gayest shit I've ever read in my life.
Secondly, there's another quote which is much briefer. Clem says: "...after the words 'And he comes into Jericho' the secret Gospel adds only: 'And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.'"
So that's very interesting, because that fixes an issue in Mark. Mark 10:46 in the canonical gospel says this: "They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho..." Okay, what, they came to Jericho and then they left? Why even tell us that they went to Jericho? So the Secret Gospel fixes that, and at least tells us something that happened there.
Clem had more to say about the Secret Gospel of Mark, but unfortunately the medieval scribe stopped copying in the middle of his page, so we don't know the rest of Clem's letter.
What's fascinating about all of this is that some scholars propose that Clem's framing of the "public" and "secret" gospel of Mark may not be true... or at least that the canonical gospel of Mark that we have today may not be the "public" gospel Clem was referring to.
Our Gospel of Mark may actually be a redacted version of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
In other words, the little extra verse explaining Jesus' activities in Jericho may not be an addition fixing a problem from canon Mark, but rather Secret Mark predates our canon Mark, and it was redacted to remove references to this Lazarus-like character.
EXCEPT. By the time this redactor got around to Mark 14:51, they gave up on their project, and forgot to take out the Streaker. Remember when I randomly started talking about the Greek used to write about the Streaker? The character in Secret Mark is ALSO a “neaniskos” (“young man”) and Jesus tells him to wear a “sindona” (linen cloth), the same one that someone grabbed and he ran off naked in the canonical Mark 14:52.
This mysterious Lazarus-like character who is "learning about the mysteries of the Kingdom of God" from Jesus all night, or whatever the kids are calling it these days, matches the canon Streaker perfectly.
But you know what else? Jesus loves this guy. He is "the youth Jesus loved"--just as the Beloved Disciple is called "the disciple Jesus loved" in canon John. I would love to confirm if the Greek word for love is matching except my site that shows the Greek of Secret Mark is not annotated and I don't know how to get it to give me the Greek word for "love". (My method that showed me neaniskos and sindona wasn't working for love.)
Oh yeah, and doesn't the Beloved Disciple not show up in John until the last supper? What was he doing before then?
Well... the author(s) of Secret Mark clearly think this Lazarus-like character is "the one Jesus loved." Does John, the one canon book that contains Lazarus and the one canon book that contains the Beloved Disciple, think the same thing?
Oh, hey, check out how Lazarus is referred to in John within verses of being introduced: "The sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” John 11:3
A bit later:
"Jesus began to weep. So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” John 11:35-36
So... the clues that Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple were inside canon John all along. But if the Gospel of John really plainly states that Lazarus is the one Jesus loves... why does the rest of John get all weird about this guy's name and avoid it at all cost?
And my guess here is because we're working with multiple authors--the Lazarus story is originally from a source that the main author of John was quoting, called by scholars "The Signs Gospel" because it's mostly just a list of miracles about how cool Jesus is. To be clear, we don't have the text of it today, but scholars take apart all of these weird little stories that don't seem to match how the main author of John writes, and we're left with this weird little collection of miracle stories, including the story of Lazarus (plus the epilogue, which was written by a third author after the main author of John was done). So it seems that the Signs Gospel author had no problem talking about Lazarus, but the main author of John (and the epilogue writer) were only interested in referring to him as "the disciple Jesus loved."
IN REVIEW:
The Streaker (canon Mark)
- a "neaniskos" (young man)
- naked under the "sindona" (linen cloth)
- conspicuously unnamed character
Beloved Disciple (canon John)
- Jesus loves this guy
- cuddling at the last supper
- assigned to take care of
his mother-in-lawMary after Jesus' death - conspicuously unnamed character
Lazarus (canon John/Signs Gospel)
- Jesus loves this guy
- raised from the dead
- from Bethany, has a sister who goes to get Jesus for him (Mary)
Guy from Secret Mark:
- a "neaniskos" (young man)
- conspicuously unnamed character
- naked under the "sindona" (linen cloth)
- raised from the dead
- from Bethany, has a sister who goes to get Jesus for him
- Jesus loves this guy
In other words, if it's true that canon Mark is redacted Secret Mark, then this narrative is pretty much another version of the Lazarus story, with the added focus on this character being naked under that sindona and the fact that was Jesus teaching him mysteries all night. This parallel story makes overt something that was hiding in plain sight in John this whole time, which was that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple.
FAQs
Q. Does this mean Jesus, the historical bro, was gay or bi and/or really hooked up with a twink who died or almost died?A. "No" in the sense of "we don't know that." 😔 Basically we can't trust the gospel writers to know anything about anything. I do think these are data points that show it is possible that Jesus was gay, meanwhile, it should be noted for the record that there is absolutely no data that points toward Jesus being straight.
Q. Does this mean that Jesus, the character as portrayed in Secret Mark and/or John, was gay or bi and/or really hooked up with a guy?
A. I think we're very strongly in "queer coded" territory for Secret Mark at least. In Clem's letter, he's like, "No, Teddy, it's NOT GAY, if it says they're gay it's the wrong book! See, here's what it says in the REAL Secret Mark. They're ONLY two dudes who love each other SO MUCH who hang out together all night with the twink mostly naked. NOT GAY."
*note that Clem didn't yet live in an era where they thought of people as gay or whatever but that's basically what happened
Q. So if canon Mark is redacted Secret Mark, does that mean Secret Mark was the first version?
A. I have no idea. I assume lots of scholars have opinions on this, but I haven't read up on this. Like John, canon Mark does have multiple authors because just like John, some guy came along and was like "This needs an epilogue. uncaps pen" But I don't know if scholars think there are multiple authors in the rest of Mark as well. For all I know, one of the following could have happened:
Original version of Mark -> Secret Mark author added some gay stuff (maybe influenced by what he read in the Signs Gospel and/or John) -> Redactor tried to take out some gay stuff, leaving the Streaker
OR
Secret Mark is the original Mark, predating John (maybe predating the Signs Gospel, maybe influenced by it) -> Redactor tried to take out some gay stuff, leaving the Streaker.
Q. Wait, is Secret Mark a modern forgery?
A. Suuuure, you ask me if Secret Mark is a modern forgery AFTER I call it queer coded. 🙄 A little history: The copy of Clem's letter that contains everything we know about Secret Mark was discovered in 1958 by Morton Smith, and it was last seen sometime around 1990, and at the time was in the possession of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. The ink and fiber were never tested, which might have helped determine if it was a modern forgery, but it wasn't the original copy of Clem's letter, it was a medieval one, so it's not like the test would reveal "This came from the hand of Clem himself!" It would have just determined if it was made around the time it was found. Wikipedia says it's possible that someone at the Greek Orthodox Church destroyed it because Smith accurately described it as homoerotic, which wouldn't surprise me at all. We still have photos of it.
I sadly do have to say here it's certainly possible it's a modern forgery. Scholar Bart Ehrman made a post in 2023 saying he believes it's a modern forgery, but he believes the "jury is out" and he is willing to be persuaded that it's legitimate. In comments in another post, he notes Smith's students pretty universally believe the letter is authentic meanwhile Smith's colleagues are divided.
Edit to add: James Tabor, a respected scholar (a student of Smith's and a friend of Ehrman--Bible scholarship is a small world!) states in strong terms that he believes it is not a fraud and lays out scholarship that he believes makes the case. (2018)
Here's some info from the introduction to Secret Mark in my copy of "The Complete Gospels": "Early discussion of it was marred by accusations of forgery and fraud, no doubt owing in part to its controversial contents. Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic." (1994)
I, for one, as someone who knows nothing about anything, think that if some respectable scholars think it's real, then it's worth investigating as if it is, especially because I think that Academia and historians definitely have a tendency to assume queerness didn't exist before the 20th century.
Q. What are your sources for this?
A. I read Secret Mark and the Signs Gospel in the third edition of "The Complete Gospels" edited by the scholar Robert J. Miller (1994), and learned a lot about these gospels from the introductions and notes to those books. I've also been looking at the translation of Secret Mark here and the Greek text of it here. For the canon gospels, I've been looking at the NRSVUE translation on Bible Gateway and the Greek text of the canon gospels here. And I also looked at Wikipedia. ✌️
Q. Cameron... who else do you want to tie to the Beloved Disciple/Streaker/Lazarus... I know there's someone else...
A. You caught me 😔 I really want to add the mysterious man at the tomb at the end of Mark, not stated to be an angel, but often assumed to be one.... bUT HE IS A "NEANISKON" hoots hollers screams but actually he's wearing a white robe ("stolēn leukēn"), not a sindona. And I mean... he lost his sindona?? Maybe he got something else to wear? But I don't know. It's a stretch, I know. (In John, the Beloved Disciple is explicitly participating in the discovery of the empty tomb with Mary Magdalene and Simon Peter.)
