Introduction

Dr David C Ammon Hillman is a Classical philologist whose thesis on the use of drugs in Roman Pharmacy earned him a worthy PhD. But does his expertise in this one field qualify him to be an expert in others, like the historical and cultural considerations of the uniquely privileged Jewish population under Roman rule to more correctly interpret New Testament texts? Translation is a different art to philology and requires knowledge of context, of textual criticism (thence authenticity of sources), contemporary texts and historical events that may have had a bearing on the author's frame of reference as he wrote to his particular audience in their situation, in their own, familiar language. The aim of good exegesis is to best represent the original author's intention in what he communicated to his own audience. As I proceed with my analysis of his translation, it should become evident whether or not Hillman is demonstrating that he has an adequate grasp of the principles of sound methodology for translation.

In his pursuit for the best explanation for the presence of an anonymous youth who was with Jesus at his arrest, Dr DCA Hillman has used his extensive knowledge of classical texts on cultic rites and of the vast corpus of Greek medical texts, to derive his translation of the pertinent account in Mk 14:51-52. He has called it,  the New Satanic Version and first announced it in his LadyBabylon666 YouTube in September 2023. 

Some of the following clips have been recorded at 1.5 times speed.

The call for a critique   

Hillman is very proud of his translation, but should he be?

Well, Hillman has asked for a review, so I shall give him one. I may indeed be a David in my knowledge of Classical Philology compared to him, but knowledge of Greek is only one of many components required simultaneously for producing a valid translation. I shall slay this Goliath by simply slinging his own words back at him propelled by the force of integrity to the very lexicon he (mis)uses.

The Greek text of Mk 14:51-52 reads:

Καὶ νεανίσκος τις συνηκολούθει αὐτῷ περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ, καὶ κρατοῦσιν αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ καταλιπὼν τὴν σινδόνα γυμνὸς ἔφυγεν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν.   

This is his “elegantly modern, literal translation” of it:

Some unknown naked kid with his penis and testicles wrapped in a medicated bandage was assigned to serve Jesus. The authorities arrested the juvenile suspect but he fled custody and in the process left his bandage behind.

Analysis by Word or Phrase

Some unknown from tís is acceptable and is often used to denote the introduction of a new character in the story.

naked is correctly translated from the adjective, gumnós, (although it can be argued that when he was with Jesus he was actually loosely clothed). Furthermore, gumnós is acting as a nominalized adjective, where epὶ gumnoũ should be understood correctly as "on (his) naked (body).” I will comment later on how Hillman handles epὶ gumnoũ.

Neānískos

Kid Should neānískos be translated, young man, teen, kid, boy, child or younger? 

The correct translation of neānískos has long been a point of uncertainty and valid criticism. Yet in the mind of his followers, Hillman’s definition has become an established fact by his endless repetition of his mantra: “Jesus Christ was arrested with a naked kid in a public park at 4 am in the morning, screaming, ‘I am not a child-trafficker’.” (Please see my  dedicated page which refutes all of this mantra.) Although universally translated, “young man,” Hillman has gone to great lengths to arrive at his more juvenile definition of neānískos as not just a prepubertal youth, but even a very young child!

It is necessary to keep in mind what the LSJ, itself, has to reveal about the age range covered by this word:

Surveying the corpus for how different authors defined the age range of a neānískos, reveals that throughout the classical period, it was quite nebulous, with authors defining it differently. On one hand, beginning on the fifth line, is how Pythagoras defines the ages:

παῖς εἴκοσι ἔτεα, νεηνίσκος εἴκοσι, νεηνίης εἴκοσι, γέρων εἴκοσι” Pythag. ap. D.L.8.10. 

"A child (παῖς) for twenty years (age 0-20), a youth (νεηνίσκος) for twenty years (age 20-40), a young man (νεηνίης) for twenty years (age 40-60), an old man (γέρων) for twenty years (age 60-80).”

Writing at the same time as Pythagoras, (5th c. BCE),  Herodotus was equating neānískos and neēníēs. But the lawyer, Antiphon, was equating a neānískos with a meirákion, a lad, stripling meaning an adolescent or teenager to young adulthood. 

Additionally, the definition by Menander of meirákion also includes another word, 'éphēbos, which translates to "adolescent," and appears in sequence of ascending ages below that of meirákion, anér and gérōn, old man. In this case, it is not clear whether meirákion is supposed to be the age equivalent to a neānískos. Following that sequence by Menander is a phrase from Aphorisms by Hippocrates defining meirákion as "the beginning of growing to the full covering of a beard at thrice seven" since he had divided the stages of maturation into seven periods of seven years. But immediately after his definiton of meirákion, the next seven years are those designated to be those of a neānískos, i.e. 21-28 years. This is the entire definiton in the Hippocratic Corpus, On Sevens 5.8–35

"Just as in nature, so too in human nature there are seven periods, which we call 'ages': παιδίον (infant), παῖς (child), μειράκιον (adolescent), νεηνίσκος (young man), ἀνήρ (adult man), πρεσβύτης (elder), γέρων (aged man)."

A παιδίον (infant) lasts until 7 years of age, at which point the milk teeth fall out (ὀδόντων ἐκβολή).

A παῖς (child) lasts until the beginning of puberty (γονῆς ἐκφύσις), around 14 years old (2 × 7).

A μειράκιον (adolescent, lad) lasts from the appearance of facial hair (γενείου λαχνώσις) until full facial covering, around 21 years old (3 × 7).

A νεανίσκος (young man) lasts until the full growth of the entire body (αὐξήσιος ὅλου τοῦ σώματος), around 28 years old (4 × 7).

An ἀνήρ (adult man) lasts until one year short of 50, around 49 years old (7 × 7).

A πρεσβύτης (elder) lasts until 56 years old (8 × 7).

After that, one is a γέρων (aged man)."

How influential had this Hippocratic definiton of neānískos become by the time the gospels were wrtten in the Roman period? The definitions in Isodore (5:40) have close alignment with infantia (0-7), puerita (7-14), adolescentia (14-28) iuvenitus (28-50) gravitas (50-70) and senectus (over70). There are numerous literary examples to confirm that these were indeed, the terms for the stages of growth that had become accepted into Roman society and law, for the age of legal capacity was 14 years for a boy entering adolescentia, adolescence. Any age nearing pubescence, as Hillman interprets the Gethsemane scene, would still be termed "child," that is, below 14 years and would be termed a païs, with the Roman equivalent being still in childhood - pueritia.

Not all Hellenic authors agreed with the precise nomenclature given by Hippocrates, for a Hellenistic period inscription found at Delos named teenagers in the period after childhood as 'éphēboi. But authors contemporaneous to the gospel authors acknowledged the definitions of Hippocrates, cited above in the definiton of meirákion. In an example from Plutarch, he made only three broad age categories, placing the age of a meirákion between that of a boy (païs) and a man (anér), while simultaneously defining meirákion as "under twenty one." Lucian (also contemporaneous with the NT authors) says a meirákion is "about twenty." It follows that they were dividing the Roman category of adolescentia into the two Greek terms defined by Hippocrates, namely meirákion followed by neānískos at age 21 and up to age 28. Even a peripubertal boy has the ability to ejaculate preceding the growth of facial hair when he would be termed a meirákion, while his being called a neānískos would be yet another seven years distant. Furthermore, the verb describing the attainment of puberty is meriakieúomai, not a word incorporating neānískos. In addition to this, there exists in different regions three terms for a peri-pubescent boy - the precise description which Hillman would wish him to be for producing the first dark-coloured exudate for the imagined operation of his alleged, Christian Mystery rite. These are detailed in a fragment by Aristophanes:

boúpais = big boy

ἀntípais = no longer a boy 

melléphēbos = about to be in puberty

Biblical examples

Further confirmation of this intended understanding of neānískos is referenced in Matt 19:20, 22. Here, the neānískos is not only a responsible ruler (LK 18:18), but also had autonomy over his own great wealth. This cannot mean he is prepubertal under the age of 14, where legal capacity is assigned. Also the neānískoi in Acts 5:10 had to be strapping post-pubertal young men in order to carry out the dead Ananias and bury him. From both these biblical examples and contemporaneous secular usage, we can be confident that the age of a young man, with full facial covering, yet maturing still in bodily growth, was widely understood at the time of NT authorship, as a neānískos. This is how Mark was describing the young man accompanying Jesus at the time of his arrest, using the term he and his audience under Roman Law and culture all acknowledged. It is not logically possible for the Roman readers of Mark's gospel to conceive that a prepubertal "kid" was how Mark intended them to understand his description of the person who followed Jesus at his arrest.

Consequently, when Hillman referred to the mysterious Markan neānískos, as a "kid," he was even publicly corrected by Professor Carl Ruck, the only living Classical philologist to whom Hillman credits superior expertise than his own.

But he has obviously ignored this more senior Philologist and has become even more insistent since then. He has set up online classes to teach Greek and his interpretations:

Yet, he knows that neānískos cannot be the diminutive of boy, because he knows the word for "boy" is país 

Yet he still does not admit that neānískos is the diminutive of neāníās, a man in his prime aged 40-60 according to Pythagoras, although authors more contemporary to the New Testament placed the age range a litte earlier. Yet Hillman even goes to the ludicrous extreme of defining a neānískos as a “freshy”! (He derived this idea from the entry in the 5-6th c. BCE lexicon of Hēsychius where neá, fresh, is the root of neāníās, man, (neēníēs in the Ionian dialect of Classical Greek and also present in the LSJ entry). However, it should be without question that Hēsychius' entry has very little or no relevance to the newer evolution of Koine Greek in which the NT was written 6 to 7 centuries later, just as we would not refer to the works of Chaucer to define our modern English words.

 epὶ gumnoũ

Hillman translates this phrase as with his penis and testicles

How did the Author of Mark's gospel intend the reader to understand this phrase? Should it be "on (his) naked (body)," or "with his penis and testicles," or both? 

Does Hillman imagine that shouting it so emphatically and confidently makes it true? Just to make sure he reinforces this definition, he repeats it several more times in other shows:

But wait a minute, hasn't he just translated gumnoũ (genitive of gumnós) correctly in the opening phrase describing the young man as "naked" (even though in the nominalized form it is in, it should be understood as naked body)? But now, he is saying that gumnós is acting as a different nominalized adjective, emphatically translating the phrase as, "on (his) privates!!!" You can't have it both ways, sir! It has to be one or the other; either the young man with him is not naked, or there is nothing on his privates. Which is it? And just to be certain that gumnós has never been translated as “private parts,” here is the LSJ entry for gumnós:

What's more, he noted earlier in the LSJ, that spēlaion can be translated as "privy parts" from Hab 2:15:

The illustration of the LSJ showing “privy parts” was brief in the clip above, but he is more explicit about it in this later clip. Please also refer to my page on lēistēs for my full analysis of his contrivance of this novel definiton of his, as "child-trafficker."

However, when he initially introduced gumnós as his own, unique definition for “privy parts” he was not admitting there were any other definitions for "his penis and testicles." So, when (possibly inadvertently) he followed up the reference to Hab 2:15 he began translating it, 😳 Ohhhh whoops! he suddenly realised he's going to put his foot in it and illogically broke off into "Hallelujah" claiming that it is not a Hebrew word, but is Greek! 

What's more later on, he found another word, aidoíon, that also means private parts, which is also not gumnós 

He also knows that the Greek word for testicle is órchis, yet he defined it as “private parts” yet again in one of his later shows. Unfortunately, I had not properly identified the clip which included it. But I can supply the LSJ definition:

Wrapped peribeblēménos derives from perí (around) and bállō (to throw) but strictly it’s a more loose "throw around," "cast about" than Hillman's implied tight binding. This action would be better described by katedéō found as katadéthē in the LXX of Ezek 30:21,

Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and, lo, it hath not been bound up, to apply healing medicines, 

to put a bandage to bind it, . 

Wouldn't you say that this describes binding on a “medicated bandage”? But, of course, there's no sindōn in the LXX version of Ezek 30:21

sindōn

Hillman translates sindóna in a totally unique way, claiming it means in a medicated bandage. This appears to have been pulled out of thin air allegedly from references in medical texts which he has never shown the viewer. But he did show an LSJ entry for bussinos, "made of flax" (ie, linen) and draws attention to the truncated quotation which includes the word, sindōn, in reference to bandage, found in two references by Herodotus. (Additionally, noting the porphouros (purple) and alleging drug use, which is entirely irrelevant. It is simply the colour of the linen.)

But the same two texts from Herodotus are also highlighted in the LSJ definition of sindōn appearing as: ς. βυσσίνης τελαμῶνες, used for mummies, Hdt.2.86; of surgeons' bandages, Hdt.7.181 

Following up those references is very revealing, that a total of three words are required to turn sindōn into a "linen bandage"

Hdt.2.86.6: "they wash the body and wrap the whole of it in bandages of fine linen cloth ..." σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶνες,

Hdt.7.181.2,  " ...wrapping him in bandages of linen cloth ..." σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι

Sindōn retains its customary meaning as fine cloth of any material, shape or size for many purposes - including its use in the NT as a burial shroud (Mk 15:48)

Bussínos refers to what this cloth is made of: linen.

Telamōn describes the shape of the linen cloth: a broad band (can be a leather strap for carrying a sword, etc, definition, below)

Also, please note that the authors of the LSJ defined sindōn as "winding sheet" in Matt 27:59 the exactly parallel passage to Mark 15:48 describing the wrapping of Jesus' corpse in a fine linen cloth. Would the readers of Mark's gospel be expected to understand the intended meaning of sindōn in Mk 14:51-52 should take on this utterly different meaning of "medicated bandage" here, compared to its use in the next chapter in the customary way as "cloth"?

Here category A.2 is relevant.  As a bandage, telamōn is found in 4 additional texts and the long roll of linen for wrapping mummies is also noted.

A further search for anything in the literature resembling a "medicated bandage" reveals that Hippocratês describes a homeopathic wrap for applying a herbal extract for absorption through the skin. The word he uses for wrap or "bandage" is othonia, cloth. Here's a typical example of the use of othonia as a medicated bandage (1 of 50 separate texts from Hippocrates):

text fist., section 3: ... ἔπειτα ὀθόνιον βύσσινον τιθυμάλλου ὀπῷ τοῦ μεγάλου δεύσας,

"Thereafter, a linen cloth drenched in the juice of a big Euphorbia Peplus (spurge) ... "

Interestingly, othonia is the word used in both Luke's and John's burial accounts for the shroud around Jesus' corpse, while Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59 use sindōn referring to a fine linen shroud. Neither othonia nor sindōn convey the slightest hint that the New Testament authors intended the meaning "medicated bandage," even though the women came with spices to put inside the othonia on Jesus' corpse (Lk 24:1)

What was the relationship of the young man to Jesus?

Assigned to serve Jesus from sunēkolouthei autō. Strictly, "to closely follow" and used of the women who had followed him from Galilee (Lk 23;49) and no-one to accompany him up the mount of Transfiguration except his three principle disciples (Mk 5:37). In this context, the use of the verb is entirely appropriate to the young man closely accompanying him while all the other disciples were asleep in two groups at a distance. 

Hillman displays the LSJ in the following screen recording, but is always rather selective in the connotations he picks from it. The first connotations are about following the army, but also appropriately used when going homewards or following a god. But when he highlights "attend" and makes it apply to a slave, he is in error for this is mental attention in connotation 2, as in "closely following" the argument. Having incorrectly applied this verb to the attention of a slave to his master, Hillman makes the illogical assertion that this was one of the captive, trafficked children whom Jesus had castrated for supplying his personal need for the specialized antidote he alleges is produced in the ejaculate of this eunuchized boy.

The Arrest

The authorities arrested the juvenile suspect is an acceptable expanded paraphrase of, kratoũsin autón, "they take hold of (or seize) him."

But he fled custody and in the process left his bandage behind is another free paraphrase of, ho dè katalipōn tēn sindóna gumnòs éphugen. "But, leaving behind the cloth he fled naked." I wonder why Hillman omits any translation of the second occurrence of gumnós, here, having already given two completely different definitions of it in v 51? But in a later visit to this “translation” he adjusts his teaching to include the final gumnós yet, unbelievably in almost the same breath, also includes epi gumnoũ (genitive case of the identical word, gumnós) yet insists it now means here, “on his privates” as well as "naked"! No sir. You are irrefutably incorrect.

Concluding Summary

It should be clear that he is not at all accurate with his use of the LSJ and that he does not consider the wider contexts more fully explained in parallel passages. Neither does he let the texts speak for themselves, viewing them neutrally. Instead, resisting the needed correction of a senior philologist, he imposes an interpretation viewed through a preconceived conclusion, into his translation. He handles the Biblical texts without due diligence and integrity, despite his many protestations below,

Plausible Alternative Explanations of the Gethsemane Scene 

There are several credible interpretations already being proffered from critical scholarship, whether the scene were symbolic or literal, and I will offer some more, myself. If there is any historicity to the scene, rather than it being a literary device with religious symbolism, then a few archaeological, historical and textual facts might help towards answering the question over why Jesus was accompanied by a loosely clad young man on the evening of his arrest. 

Archaeological details
There is a large cave used for olive oil processing which was called Gethsemane from Gat (press) and shemanim (olive oil) to where Jn 18:2 reveals Jesus frequently went with his men. The cave is now a prayer Room curated by the Franciscans and open to the public. In 1956, restoration of the Grotto by Virgilio Corbo revealed not only remains of the crushing vat, the olive press a storage area for the filled jars and under the floor, what he thought was a cistern with a high roof. It was later interpreted as a Mikvah for the purification of the workers as they processed oil for use in the Temple. This video retelling the discoveries is most informative. But also there is (?) another first century Mikvah in close vicinity to the cave on the mount of Olives which was rediscovered in 2020. Please note in the video that the flight of steps into the Mikvah descend from a small, blocked doorway, perhaps to a passage to the exit near the Grotto entrance. From the footage of both videos, it is not possible to ascertain whether or not this is the same Mikvah beneath the floor of the Grotto.

Reconstructing the Scene
The various accounts do differ and it is difficult to reconcile them. Jn 12:27 has Jesus agonising over the decision to follow his Father's will to go to such an awful death, but mentions the cup in Jn 18:11. The prayer of Jn 17 (an obviously later theological addition) is spoken just prior to their departure for Gethsemane and there is no detail of where the other disciples are situated. But  Matthew, Mark and Luke all have him dividing off Peter, James and John from the other disciples and then going further on from them to pray. Might this be consistent with him leaving eight disciples in the cave, taking his three closest disciple outside the cave, then descending the stairway "a little further" to pray in the seclusion of the Mikvah cave? Was the neānískos already there by pre-arrangement for initiation by water baptism into inner discipleship? There are various interpretations of his identity which will be further discussed. 

Supporting evidence

1. An intersting detail in Jn 18:4 is the use of exerchomai, "to come out of" "to emerge" for describing the motion of Jesus when the arresting party approached. This would certainly be in agreement with Jesus either emerging through the stairway opening into the cave, or emerging from the Gethsemane cave, itself, out into the grove to rejoin the other disciples.

2. Initiation into the authentic Jesus movement, like his partner's John the Baptist (and the Qumran community), was water baptism for the remission of sins. Jesus, himself is recorded performing water baptisms in Jn 3:22-23.

3. The early Jesus movement always baptised their initiates in water while naked then gave them a large linen cloth (sindōn) to cover their naked body.

4. The Mandeans, descendents of the John the Baptist movement, also perform baptisms in white linen garments.

5. When Morton Smith interpreted the manuscript of Secret Mark (whether a 17th c. forgery, his own forgery or genuine) describing another neaniskos wearing nothing but a sindōn went to Jesus to be shown the mystery of the kingdom, he suggested it was for his baptism (while denying the interpretation of Carpocrates that it was a homosexual encounter).

6. Secret Mark describes this neaniskos as wealthy and the one that Jesus raised from the dead and also that “he loved him.”

Interpretation 1

When the gospel writers described the encounter of Jesus with the wealthy young man, they mention he was a neaniskos (Mt 19:20) and that Jesus "loved him" (Mk 10:21). Jesus gave him the specific call into discipleship as he had given his Apostles, but we know that at that time he could not join the Jesus movement by selling all to give to the poor (just as was required at Qumran, and was practiced in Acts 4-5)

Considering all the above points, is it not plausible that Mark recorded the young man's change of mind who then came seeking out Jesus for baptism into discipleship?

Interpretation 2

Another explanation derived from speculations by Dr James Tabor, can be suggested from an excerpt of the Gospel of the Hebrews used by the Ebionites (the most probable descendants of the original Jewish Church that was headed by James before his assassination in 62 AD). It tells of Jesus giving a sindōn to the high priest's servant to give to James …. Possibly a mark of authority that he used to wear and he was now commissioning his younger brother, James, as his successor. (The high priest's servant, Malchus, was mentioned in Jn 18:10 being present at the Gethsemane arrest scene and had his ear cut off by Peter's sword). 

Some suggest James may have been the beloved disciple, but was kept unnamed by the gospel authors and the second century editors who at the time of these compositions, wanted to distance themselves from James and the Jewish Jerusalem church after the first Jewish uprising and destruction of the Temple. The need to be distinct from the Jews became more sharply focused in the years after the Bar Kohkba revolt was crushed, thus influencing the gospel accounts which were still in process of composition at this time, according to the most recent scholarly analysis on the Marcion corpus.

Interpretation 3

Another explanation is that the nakedness of the young man represents the naked soul. Based on the work of Classicists like Dr Dennis MacDonald, it could be that Mark who employed many mimetic connections to Homer was adapting a particular story  for illustration. Here, it could be a reference to Odysseus's interaction with the soul of Elpenor after he had returned to earth from Hades. Nakedness was how the Greeks represented a disembodied soul. His analysis of the elements in the story by Mark does reveal very dense parallels to the Homeric tale. 

This could possibly also be a very graphic representation of the words of Jesus in Mk 14:34, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death.”

For certain, this naked soul was how it was understood by a particular sect with a typically docetic view of the Saviour, the Sithians or Sethians, described by pseudo-Hippolytus in Bk V of his Refutation of all Heresies. They believed the Christ, as a spiritual being in merely the appearance of human flesh, could not suffer nor know death. Consequently, after taking the Father's cup, the Christ spirit departed the phantasm of a human form, becoming "naked" at his arrest, leaving behind the outer garment (body) and successfully evaded capture, torture and death.

Interpretaion 4

Several scholars have suggested that the young man who fled suffering, but is also identified clothed again in the empty tomb could be a symbolic trope representing the believer's death and resurrection with Christ and how Christ's resurrection abolishes the fear of death.

Overall Conclusion

Using the sound methodological techniques of viable translation and upholding care and integrity in the use of Lexica, it is only possible to say about this passage that:

• Contemporary authors used the cultural understanding of the seven ages described by Hippocrates which defines that the young man with Jesus was between twenty one and twenty eight years old

• He was wearing a cloth loosely thrown about his naked body

• He was closely accompanying following Jesus while all the other disciples were at a distance

• Members of the arresting party attempted to seize him, but the cloth came away as he fled, for the first time becoming completely naked

Of all possible explanations, Ammon Hillman's is the only one which necessitates the reinvention of several well established definitions of words to construct a cult scene purely by eisegesis of suppositions with no contemporary independent textual or archeological support, nor consistency with how the author employed those words elsewhere in the same book. It is, therefore, among the least likely of possible explanations of the scene described in the text of Mk 14:51-52.