Mark Chapter 14
Starts with the same time stamp as Matthew 26 did. Two days before the Passover.
2021 - 2 for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people." [Mar 14:2 ESV]
The powerful in government and religion have always seen themselves as more "able" to discern the right course than the people they rule over. They have always disdained the synergistic knowledge of the crowd. And they have been cowards from time immemorial, eschewing an honest attempt to make their case and persuade the masses, and instead operating in secret, making their plans and plotting behind closed doors, and arrogantly setting themselves above those they are charged with shepherding.
Possible FB post...but that last...they are supposed to shepherd, but instead they please themselves.
Mark's account of the spikenard in the alabaster jar being used to anoint Jesus head while he is in the house of Simon the leper is very much like Matthew's. Mark adds that it was worth 300 denarii. MSB says that's a year's wages.
I just took a look at the account in John. The story of this ointment/lotion/spikenard is timestamped "six days before the Passover" in John. In Matthew and Mark, it says two days before. It would be good to have a reconciliation of the time ready to hand in case I am ever asked. The Harmony puts Jn 12:1, the verse that mentions six days, well back, prior to Matt 21, and Luke 19:29. BUT, it puts John 12:9-11 right after Jn 12:1, where John talks about the Pharisees wanting to kill Lazarus also. The Harmony puts all these verses as solo verses. When done that way, the dinner with Lazarus was six days before the Passover, and the dinner where the spikenard was used was two days before. For some reason, per the Harmony, John inserted the information about the plot to kill Lazarus just before the dinner at Simon's house - which John also records, and John says Lazarus was also present at Simon's house. Not sure how much that helps...but it is at least an idea. There is a note in the Harmony at John 12:1 that says they decided to honor the timeline in Mark at this point.
2024 - So I looked at this difference again this year. First, I checked MSB, and got referred to the beginning of John's gospel and a section called "Interpretive Challenges". MacArthur goes into a long detailed explanation of how it could be that Jesus had the Passover meal with his disciples, AND be crucified at the same time the Passover lambs were being slain...the next day! This I had never even thought about, but it does seem a seriously important point. So. In Galilee, a day was from sunrise to sunrise. In Jerusalem a day was from sunset to sunset. So Passover day, to Galileans, began on Thursday at Sunrise and ended on Friday at Sunrise. To those in Jerusalem, Passover Day began at sunset Thursday and ended at sunset Friday. So Jesus ate the Passover meal with the 12 on Thursday - AFTER SUNSET - which was Passover Day in Galilee. Then he was crucified on Friday during the day, which was Passover in Jerusalem, BEFORE those in Jerusalem had their Passover meal.
But...they took Jesus off the cross before the sun set on Friday. If the Jews waited until sunset Friday to eat the Passover, then that would have been the day AFTER Passover wouldn't it?
2024 - So...they took Jesus down from the cross NOT because of the Passover - he was crucified on Preparation day - but because at sunset on Preparation day, the Sabbath began. They didn't want the bodies there during the high holy day, the Sabbath after the Passover. John says Jesus was crucified on the Preparation Day. They broke their legs so they would go ahead and die on Preparation Day, and NOT on the Passover itself, which was on the Sabbath. So as I make it out, the lambs for the Passover meal were killed in the afternoon on Preparation Day, Friday, they were cooked, and then they were eaten after sunset on what would still be our Friday, but was the beginning of Saturday- the Sabbath - according to custom in Jerusalem. So the Jews ate the Passover meal after Jesus was in the tomb.
No...This is still not correct. Or I don't know enough to grasp that it is correct. Is the Passover meal eaten at the end of Preparation Day, or actually ON Passover? (It is eaten on 14 Nissan). Is Passover a day or a meal? Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, as here: 31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. [Jhn 19:31 ESV]. A little earlier, we have this: 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" [Jhn 19:14 ESV]. The preparation of the Passover is the day Jesus was judged...and crucified.
MacArthur's note says this: "Being Galileans, Jesus and the disciples considered Passover day to have started at sunrise on Thursday and to end at sunrise on Friday. The Jewish leaders who arrested and tried Jesus, being mostly priests and Sadducees, considered Passover day to begin at sunset on Thursday and end at sunset on Friday." So...Preparation day is somehow the same day as Passover? YES!!! Because preparation day is about the Sabbath. Does 14 Nissan always fall on the same day of the week? NO!!! So at the crucifixion, Passover just happened to be really close to the Sabbath. It could have been Thursday or Friday! That's where some confusion is coming from! We don't really know exactly what year Jesus was crucified.
I found this: https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2020&month=4&country=34
Using this calendar, in 31 AD, 15 Nissan was on a Tuesday. In 32 AD, also a Tuesday. In 33 AD, it was on a Saturday, the Sabbath. From this, many believe Jesus was crucified in 33 AD.
Going with this, Passover fell on the Sabbath the year Jesus was crucified. The Passover meal was to be eaten
This: https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1751/jewish/What-Is-a-Seder-Passover-Meal.htm
As per Biblical command, it is held after nightfall on the first night of Passover (and the second night if you live outside of Israel), the anniversary of our nation’s miraculous exodus from Egyptian slavery more than 3,000 years ago. The Seder meal in 2024 will be celebrated on April 22 (and 23 in the Diaspora) after nightfall.
Awesome. So what do we know now? Or...first, let's just admit that we do not know what day Passover was in the gospels. We know Jesus was crucified on a Friday, Preparation Day, before the Sabbath. We know that in Jn 19:31, John considered the Sabbath to start at sundown. We know that the seder starts after sundown on 14 Nissan (so it MUST BE at the start of 14 Nissan, not at the end, if we reckon the days beginning at sundown). SO, if Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and was taken down before "Saturday" started, and that Saturday was also Passover as in AD 33, then the Passover meal would have been eaten - the seder would be held - after sundown at the BEGINNING of the Sabbath.
2024 - this confirms: 17 And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. [Mar 14:17 ESV]. AFTER SUNDOWN on Thursday was the last supper. And somehow, this was Passover. Per JMac above, Passover in Galilee had begun at sunrise that day. BUT, if we reckon Passover in Galilee from sunrise to sunrise, on Thursday, then for Jerusalem, it would have been from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday, and since it is eaten in the evening, both Jesus and all Jerusalem would have eaten it that same day.
This is a HUGE problem!!! I have spent 3 hours on this today, and I still cannot resolve the seeming contradictions.
Do we know, where do we think it says, that Jesus died at the same time the Passover lambs were being killed? That's where all this started. So...per JMac again, we know the last supper had already occurred before we get this verse in John: 28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. [Jhn 18:28 ESV]. This clearly implies that the last supper was in the past, but the conspirators in Jerusalem had NOT yet eaten the Passover. Then comes this is the NEXT chapter: 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" [Jhn 19:14 ESV]. This implies that on the day of Jesus' trial, the Passover was being prepared, and that afternoon, Jesus died, which would have been at the same time the Passover lambs were being killed. This is where it comes from.
What if John means it was the Day of Preparation that fell ON Passover? So...it was the day before the Sabbath and it was 14 Nissan, with Passover starting at sunset that day.
If Passover had started at sunset the previous day, then the meal would already have been eaten since we've established that the meal is eaten at the beginning of the day.
BUT, the reason they wouldn't go into the Praetorium was because they did not want to become unclean, and so not be able to eat the Passover. But isn't the rule that if you become unclean during the day, you are unclean until sundown, and then you wash, and you are clean? So they could have been clean by the time of the Passover seder, right? So...did having eaten the seder become null and void if you became unclean later in the day after having eaten it? This idea is about the only way I can see that any of this makes sense.
2024 - I give up...I am just too confused after 3.5 hours of puzzling this out. I don't think JMac is making good sense here. I don't think is analysis holds water. But I have nothing better. Quitting for now. Perhaps later today I can pick it back up. But I need to finish my reading.
2024 - Later still:
3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. ... 8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. [Exo 12:3, 8 ESV]. This is God telling Moses how they would do the Passover their last night in Egypt. I say that because they were to take hyssop and mark the lentils. That was only done the first time.
6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. [Exo 12:6 ESV]. This is God telling Moses how the Passover was to be carried out, that last night in Egypt. They were still there at this time.
8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. [Exo 12:8 ESV]. Continues the instructions for the first time in Egypt. Killed at twilight, roasted, then eaten later in the evening.
5 And they kept the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the people of Israel did. [Num 9:5 ESV]. Is twilight before or after sundown, according to the Jews? BLB says it can be evening, sunset, or night. Evening is after sunset in my book. If the lamb was to be killed AT sunset, and then had to be cooked, it would be eaten at night.
Note that it says on the 14th day at twilight. So if, in Moses time, the days began at sunset, then the Passover lambs died at the beginning of the 14th, and were eaten sometime later that evening. So the lambs died as the day began. This was the first Passover since leaving Egypt.
6 And there were certain men who were unclean through touching a dead body, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. [Num 9:6 ESV]. The Pharisees would not go into the Praetorium because they would have to wait to take the Passover and they didn't want that inconvenience. That wasn't a dead body, but to enter that place would somehow have made them unclean. How would they get clean again? In vs 10, the only exceptions to not doing the Passover on the appointed day were touching a dead body and being on a long journey. No other uncleanness is mentioned...but the Rabbi's may have generalized this.
All these:
24 "And by these you shall become unclean. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening,
25 and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. ...
28 and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you. ...
31 These are unclean to you among all that swarm. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening. ...
39 "And if any animal which you may eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening,
40 and whoever eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. [Lev 11:24-25, 28, 31, 39-40 ESV]
All these different versions of "uncleanness" persist only until sundown. For some, clothing must be washed first, but in each case, if it happens during "daylight", you'd be clean at sundown. If it happened just after sunset, you'd be unclean almost 24 hours. Here is what they said, exactly:
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. [Jhn 18:28 ESV]. So "unclean" is not the word used. The Rabbi's could have had a completely different set of rules about this. The verb translated "could eat" in this translation, "might eat" in another...is the aorist active subjunctive. By not going in, the possibility of them having the Passover meal was kept intact. The other side of it is that had they gone in, they would have been prohibited by that action from eating the Passover meal. Context is quite clear that we are NOT talking about "for the rest of their lives" or even "next year". I think it meant the immediately upcoming Passover. How was it that they might still be unclean after sunset, UNLESS they were on sunrise to sunrise days. Clearly John was not seeing it that way because of the verse saying they wanted everybody dead before sundown so they wouldn't be hanging there on the Sabbath. What we are left with here is that John is sometimes on "Galilee time" and sometimes on "Jerusalem time", and never tells us which it is. ALSO, it is ONLY John that tells us about this. I think the best bet here is that the "traditions" surrounding getting clean had gotten very very time-consuming. Remember all the fuss about Jesus not "washing his hands before he ate". So we get the aorist and the subjunctive, meaning they couldn't be sure they'd have time to get ceremonially clean before the "Passover Party" got going. They might have to miss it. It was a social consideration as much as religious. So that explains that.
It also means, to my way of thinking, that the religious elite were planning to have their Passover meal on Friday night. Jesus and the 12 had their Passover meal on Thursday night. How do you make both Thursday after sundown and Friday after sundown the same day on the Jewish calendar?
This from Wikipedia:
Pesach starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan, which is considered the first month of the Hebrew year. The Rabbinical Jewish calendar is adjusted to align with the solar calendar in such a way that 15 Nisan always coincides with Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday. The Hebrew day starts and ends at sunset, so the holiday starts at sunset the day before. For example, in 2024, 15 Nisan coincides with Tuesday, April 23. Therefore, Pesach starts at sundown on Monday, April 22.
The 15th of Nissan? They don't even do it on the right day? How would anyone EVER figure this out!!!
Later later...
IF the Jews in Jerusalem had changed Passover to 15 Nisan, and in Galilee they were still tied to the 14th of Nisan as in Deuteronomy, which is the one you would think Jesus would observe, then ALL OF THIS WORKS OUT!!! Frankly, that is the ONLY way I can make it all fit. I have no documentation at all about when the Jews decided to ignore Num 9:5.
2024 - Next day - Found some information here and a couple of other places not annotated that say about the same thing: https://pcg.church/articles/1433/the-passover-controversy-14th-or-15th
The idea here is that the Jewish day ends "at dark", not at twilight. Therefore, killing the lambs at twilight would have been still on the 14th, at the VERY END of the 14th, and then it was eaten in haste on the 15th. Therefore, the lambs were killed on one day, but the meal that it is really about, the seder, the Passover meal, is actually eaten on the 15th.
THIS IS IT!!!
So if in Galilee, the 14th was from sunrise to sunrise, then the only twilight in which to kill the lamb would have been at twilight the 14th, and by their reckoning, they also ate the meal on the 14th, because the 15th started the NEXT MORNING.
However, in Jerusalem, which reckoned the 14th as running from dark to dark, the only twilight would have been at the very end of the 14th, in the twilight, before it changed over to the 15th at full darkness, which is when they ate. Looking at the Passover Timeline spreadsheet,
AND, this means that the John MacArthur explanatory note DOES WORK, and he is also correct that this apparent "discrepancy" in fact shows the absolute accuracy and knowledge of the culture that then was in the way - in the times - the Passover was celebrated. The real keys is that it is not from sundown to sundown, but from "dark" to "dark".
If you read the whole article linked above, from the Worldwide Church of God, you see that it is in fact a bit controversial. The WCG seems to have some problems with this interpretation. I find this part of the article to be quite definitive:
"...the sacrifice was to take place “between the two evenings.” The passage he was referring to is Exodus 12:6: “And ye shall keep it [the lamb] until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.”
“In the evening” is better translated “between the two evenings.” It is referring to that period of time between sunset and dark. So the lamb was to be killed after sunset but before dark. Notice that they were to keep the lamb until the 14th, not after or toward the end. “Until the 14th” would be at sunset right after the 13th.
The wcg teaches that the lamb was killed just after sunset (which would still be the 14th to them since their day ends at dark). Then the Passover meal was eaten in haste in the night part of the 15th; God’s death angel passed over and the Israelites got out of Egypt before the sun came up for the day part of the 15th.
Deuteronomy 16:6 was quoted above. It says that the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed “at even, at the going down of the sun ….” The Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon says this about the term “at even”: “the time between sunset and deep twilight.”
By this reckoning, and knowing that in Galilee a day is sunrise to sunrise, and in Jerusalem it is from darkness to darkness, then we see why Jesus and the 12 had the Passover on Thursday, and in Jerusalem it was on Friday.
Found some information at this webpage: https://www.gotquestions.org/Day-of-Preparation.html
The "Day of Preparation" happened EVERY week, the day before the Sabbath. They had to cook what they were going to eat on the Sabbath the day before, because no work was allowed ON the Sabbath. John, in 19:14, just means that this was A preparation day, and it was the one that came during Passover that year. The point is that Preparation Day is NOT about Passover.
And I still haven't gotten to the whole 2 day vs 6 day problem. The way the Harmony handles this is put John 12:1, where Jesus comes to Bethany 6 days before the Passover, just before Jn 12:9-11. Jn 12:2-8 are relocated to coincide with Mark 14. So this means John 12 is not a chronological account. Per the Harmony, Jn 11:55-17, Jn 12:1, and Jn 12:9-11 are correct chronology, and come just before Mark 11:1-11. where Jesus has them go get the colt and prepare for the last supper. According to the above, this would have been on Thursday. So we have the Jn 11-12 passages listed above as being an account of Jesus arriving in Bethany 6 days before the Passover, and beginning in Jn 12:9, a recounting of events that happened when he first arrived, and people wanted to see both Jesus and Lazarus. Then, Jn 12:2-8, which talk about the spikenard, and about both Jesus and Lazarus being at the same dinner, must take place four days later. So...what was John thinking as he wrote the end of 11 beginning of 12?
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. This prompted a big meeting of the Jewish elite because they thought that upon observing how many were following Jesus the raiser of dead men, the Romans would begin to work with Jesus as leader of the Jews rather than themselves. It was at this meeting that Caiaphas says it is better to murder one man than to lose the whole nation of Israel. And they began plotting to kill Jesus. In 11:54, Jesus went into hiding with his disciples so the conspirators couldn't kill him. So at this point, Jesus had not yet been to Jerusalem. He had been "near" Bethany, because presumably Lazarus was buried near the town. Jesus was on his final journey to Jerusalem at this time...but had not yet chosen to even go to Bethany. Many Jews were arriving in Jerusalem for Passover, and there was much speculation about whether Jesus would show up at all. Six days before the Passover, Jesus leaves the remote place he had been staying with his disciples - Ephraim - and goes to Bethany, 2 miles from Jerusalem. He apparently STAYS THERE for four days. John, as he narrates here, says Jesus arrived in Bethany six days before Passover. Then he skips ahead to the supper that was prepared for him 2 days before Passover. This was a big event, perhaps a very large gathering of his disciples. They'd had four days to put this together after all, and the nard might have been especially planned for the large gathering that would be there that day. So John skips over the four intervening days while all this was being prepared and goes straight from arrival to special gathering. In 2-8, he describes that event. Then in 9, John says that because of this huge large meal, word gets out that Jesus is now in Bethany, no longer in hiding, and who's plans are no longer a matter of conjecture since his presence 2 miles from Jerusalem surely indicates that he will come for the Passover. Now that they know where he is many many people come to see both Jesus, and this man they've heard about over the last four days in Jerusalem, whom Jesus raised from the dead, is also there in Bethany. Let's go see them! So...the spikenard thing is NOT what is timestamped 6 days before. It is Jesus arrival in Bethany from a remote location that is timestamped. Both Matthew and Luke tells us that the spikenard public event was two days before. John's telling of the events is consistent with Matthew and Luke.
Vs 10 repeats that Judas approached the elite, not the other way around, and offered to betray Jesus for money.
The Passover place is located. In Matt, they were to go and ask. In Mark, they were to find a man carrying a water jar. An unusual thing for a man to be doing. It was woman's work I heard one time.
Jesus and the 12 arrive to eat the Passover that evening. It is specific that it was evening. The wine was his blood of the covenant. A footnote in TCR says some manuscripts add "new" to covenant. MSB says that Judas had left the group before the Lord's Supper. He says that what Jesus was doing was transforming the Passover of the OT Covenant into the Lord's Supper of the New Covenant. A new memorial feast is thus created.
2023 - This verse:
24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. [Mar 14:24 ESV]. The focus here is on the blood being poured out for many. Yes, they drank a memorial to that blood, because it was poured out. In the Law, it was sometimes sprinkled first on the altar, but then the rest was always poured out at the base of the altar - not ON the altar. Drinking this blood memorializes Jesus dieing - having his blood drained by torture and injury - as the OT sacrifices had their blood drained. In fact, exsanguination was the cause of death for those animals... I still come back to the fact that you would never "drink" the life of the flesh - the blood - of bulls and goats. You do not want to incorporate that life into your body, to make the life of an animal part and parcel of your own life. But incorporating the sinless, righteous life of the man Jesus Christ - a perfect life - is most certainly to be desired, and the whole Lord's Supper seems to be about justification's two parts: being declared sinless, because we eat his sinless flesh, which bore our own sins on the cross and took them away. Second, we are declared righteous because we incorporate the righteousness of Christ into us through the covenantal drinking of his blood.
Peter's denial predicted. Reads almost exactly like Matthew's account. I'm sure that all remembered the details of that night because it had been told so many times among Jesus' followers by the time the gospels were written. It shouldn't be a surprise that the accounts all match in many many points.
2021 - This verse: 31 But he said emphatically, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same. [Mar 14:31 ESV]
We often accuse Peter of being brash, but here it says every one of the disciples said the same as Peter did. They all claimed to be faithful and brave. The 10 all ran to start with, and Peter denied later.
2026 - I noticed this verse, as it relates to "If God, Why Evil":
36 And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." [Mar 14:36 ESV].
Surely Jesus believed other ways were possible, he believed that there was more than one way things could go. God might have decided not to do a perfect sacrifice to 'remove" the sin of the whole world. He might have made it about works or riches or penances or hajes. Jesus believed it was POSSIBLE for God to do something else. He doesn't pray "IF there's no other way...", but "I know there IS another way, yet I submit to your perfect will." I think even here we are seeing that God saw a necessity for Jesus to suffer this kind of evil at the hands of sinners in order to accomplish some greater, purer, more perfectly exactly precisely the RIGHT way, the ONE way that accomplishes all necessary things most correctly. God is never facetious. This way - Jesus' death on the cross - was the one best way for God to glorify himself before men, before angels, before all that is and ever was. THERE WERE OPTIONS, but God knew which was best, and that best way required the suffering, tortured death of his son.
2026 - Look at the immediate result...All things are given into Jesus' hands. For his submission, his willingness, his suffering and his death, he is given ALL THINGS. God "delegates" the administration and maintenance of all that is to the person of his son. Because he was SO VERY SUBMISSIVE, even in the face of knowing there were alternatives but this course was best, because Jesus accepted without question the suffering God had chosen as best, God delegates his own authority completely to Jesus. To one who had lives as a spiritual being from the beginning, and who had now lived as a physical being without sin in a fallen and decadent world. Jesus was rewarded commensurate with his submission and obedience.
Perhaps for us too there is a reward tied to the evil we are required to suffer?
The events on the Mt, and in Gethsemane are also very nearly an exact match to Matthew's account.
I haven't made many notes on the account in Mark because it is so very similar to Matthew. Maybe some tiny differences.
One note from MSB. The young man who flees naked in vss 51, 52 may have been Mark himself. MSB says that the mob may have first come to Mark's mother's house, lead there by Judas to look for Jesus. Perhaps also, it was at this house where Jesus and the 11 had eaten the Passover. Mark may have been awakened by the commotion, and in his hurry to see what was going on, may have been less than formally dressed as he followed the crowd. I don't remember ever hearing this "back story" before. The "a young man" reference, speaking of himself without using his own name, may have been a common literary device back then. John does the same repeatedly. Or maybe it was unique to Mark, and John used the same device later, having read Mark's gospel.
2023 - But...If Mark was there, when had he joined them? As MSB tells it, this incident that Mark includes would have happened before the mob even got to the garden. Why would Mark go backward in the chronology and tell the story here, after the arrest. He shows that this young man fled naked at the same time the apostles did so. Only way this works is if Mark was following the mob - had seen them heading out and went to see what they were about. And when they arrest Jesus, and the apostles flee, perhaps they tried to grab some of them as they ran, and they recognized Mark among them, and tried to grab him also? I had always thought it was John that ran away naked...why did I think that? Doesn't say so in John...at least not in 18, where all these other events are recorded. All four talk about Peter and his sword. Only Mark talks about running away naked. Only other possibility is that there were more than the 12 with Jesus in the garden, and it is pretty difficult to make that fit the narrative.