Mark 14,51-52 and Coptic Hagiography 267 when the identity of the neanivsko" is made clear, such is the reason for the ‘silence’ of other commentators. Few seem to view his anonymity as partic- ularly enhancing the gospel, rather only serving to add a mysterious ques- tion. On the basis of the lack of importance attached to this passage, indeed as we have shown above it is often used merely as a convenient resource for developing hagiographies, we should not be so surprised to find such a late western identification of the neanivsko" with Mark. Holtzmann (14) bases his exegesis of 14,51-52 on the assertion of Olshausen, which he expounds fur- ther. He sees that the neanivsko" of Mark might be thought of as a signatory device and compares such a use of the neanivsko" by the author of Mark, as the device of the ‘Beloved Disciple’ used by the author of John. Indeed it is the development of that idea in studies of John’s gospel which might cer- tainly have influenced exegesis of these verse, even if subconsciously. Holtzmann refuses however to give a clear statement on the neanivsko"’s identity and in fact refers to the sheer mystery of the passage and thus con- cludes that the identity of the neanivsko" can never be known. In 1899 Zahn(15) echoed Olshausen’s view that the neanivsko" was John Mark. Zahn however attempted to demonstrate that the tradition of identifying the neanisko" with Mark lay within the work of Epiphanius, who in fact identi- v fied the neanivsko" with James, as we have seen. Weiss (16) takes to task the opinion of Zahn that the identification of the neanivsko" with Mark is an early tradition, stating that Epiphanius’ identification of the neanivsko" with James (not with John or John Mark) proves that Zahn’s attempts to find an earlier tradition for such an idea are flawed. Weiss’ main objective however was to demonstrate that the John Mark of Acts was the same as the evange- list. Whilst hitherto it has been accepted that the identification of the neanisko" with the Evangelist Mark lay in the mind of Olshausen, we must v in fact travel to Africa, in the 13th century to find its roots. It is in the MSS E1 = Evv., Copt.-Arab., London Brit. Mus. Oriental 1315 (Greg II), perfect, written in the Boharic dialect of Coptic, that we find the revealing Arabic footnote which tells that character is reported both as y’qub bn yusf and mrqs ’l injili’ “James the son of Joseph” and “Mark the Evangelist” (17). Mark, identified by the Copts as founder of the See of Alexandria and the ‘Be- holder of God’(18) is a figure of great veneration in that church and thus we ought not to be surprised to find that it is here, in Coptic hagiography that we find him first identified with the neanivsko". In the same way that Epipha- nius’ hagiography of James saw him so similarly identified, so too does (14) HOLTZMANN, Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien von Friedrich Bleek, II, 435-436. (15) T. ZAHN, Introduction to the New Testament (Edinburgh 1909) II, 446-447. (16) J. WEISS, Das älteste Evangelium. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markus- Evangeliums und der ältesten evanglischen Uberlieferung (Göttingen 1903) 404-411. (17) See also The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, other- wise called Meripytic and Bohairic, Volume I – the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark (Oxford 1898). (18) SHENOUDA III, The Beholder of God: Mark the Evangelist, Saint and Martyr, A Concise English Translation of the Fourth Edition (St. Peter and St. Paul Coptic Orthodox Church, Santa Monica, California, Sept. 1995) 16.