1. Component I (Mark 14: 43-46)

   Component I includes the arrival of Judas, his kiss and the arrest of Jesus. The majority of biblical scholars recognize that Mark drew this account from an earlier source, called pre-Marcan, regardless of whether it is an oral tradition or a written account. But there is a difference of opinion as to the content of this original account: did it include the scene in Gethsemane or was it simply a continuation of the Last Supper? According to Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23), it certainly contained a reference to the arrest of Jesus.

2. Component II (Mark 14: 47-52)

   This second component includes the scene of the severed ear, Jesus' recrimination that they had come with weapons when they had hitherto let him teach in the Temple, and the flight of the disciples. There is much disagreement among the biblical scholars as to its composition. For some, Mark is said to have gathered here a collection of material that was not part of a pre-Marcan account. For others, the scenes of the severed ear and the flight were part of a pre-Marcan story. In short, applying our modern logic in assessing the coherence of the narrative does not yield any conclusive results.

• John doesn't know the Synoptic, so his story is independent
• Matthew composes his story from Mark and has added elements that have some parallels with those of Luke.
• Luc knows Mark, whom he sometimes shortens, sometimes expands.
• Matthew and Luke's agreement suggests access to a tradition, perhaps oral.

1. Component I (Initial Encounter: Mk 14: 43-46 and parallels)
   1. The first such element concerns the arrival of Judas with a group that had received permission from the Jewish authorities to arrest Jesus. Luke offers a slightly divergent account of the composition of this group, with the presence of the chief priests, probably combining Jesus' arrest with elements of his trial. As for the presence of the Romans as proposed by John, it is impossible to determine its historical value.

   2. The second similar element concerns the identification of Jesus. In the Synoptics, this identification is made with the kiss of Judas. In John, it is Jesus who identifies himself (I am), which has the effect of throwing the group that came to arrest him to the ground. We recognized that this was a dramatization of the power of the name of Jesus. But there was still a resemblance to Mark (14:44: "it is he", i.e. literally, "he is"). Finally, Jesus' discourse in reaction to the kiss in Matthew and Luke testifies to an account and reflection that continued independently of Mark's version.

2. Component II (Incidents during the Arrest: Mk 14: 47-52 and parallels)
   1. The four Gospels report the scene of the severed ear. It is probably a very old detail. Jesus' negative comments on this gesture in Matthew, Luke and John bear independent witness to the fact that Christians found it confusing, and even scandalous, once the perpetrator was identified with a disciple.

   2. The second common element concerns Jesus' protest about the futility of such an arrest when he had hitherto regularly taught in public in the Temple. Although this comment by Jesus does not appear as such in John, it is echoed in his appearance before Annas (18:20-22). Thus, there must have been a Christian tradition emphasizing the correctness of Jesus' cause, without it having a particular context. Mark placed him at the time of his arrest, John at the time of his trial.

   3. A third common element is a word of Jesus explaining the necessity of these events in God's plan. This plan is made explicit by the Scripture in Mark/Matthew, by the very word of Jesus in John. One can imagine that Jesus continually reflected on the turn of events and probably referred to Scripture, as did many subsequent Christians. But it is impossible to determine whether a reference to Scripture comes from Jesus himself or from Christian reflection.

   4. Finally, the last element concerns the flight (Mark/Matthew) or departure (John) of the disciples. But John's version rather expresses his Christology on the sovereignty of Jesus. As for Luke, his omission reflects his desire to avoid presenting an unfavourable portrait of the disciples. In short, historically speaking, there is no serious reason to doubt this event, an event that no doubt led Mark to meditate on the implications of being a disciple.

This flight is the culminating example of the flight of all disciples. It is such a disgraceful scene that Matthew and Luke chose to ignore it. But is it historical? If we can say that the flight of the disciples was not invented, we cannot unfortunately use the same argument for this isolated figure of the young man. It is therefore better to remain modest and leave this young man under the veil of mystery.