http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1431
Was Jesus Gay?—An Examination of the Secret Gospel of Mark
Over the last several centuries, people have made Jesus what they
wanted Him to be. In nineteenth-century Europe, Jesus was a Romantic,
then an Existentialist. In the United States, the foremost historians of
the 1920s considered Jesus a social reformer. Forty years later, in the
1960s, the same historians saw Him as a radical revolutionary pushing
for political change. Most recently, Jesus has been characterized by
some scholars as a libertine and a homosexual. This is a clear
reflection of our “sexually liberated” age, just as other versions of
Jesus proliferated through the ages are snapshots of their own time. So
long as we craft God in our own image, God cannot condemn us, and we
will always be approved regardless of our error. George Tyrell famously
commented in 1909 that when the Liberal Protestant scholars looked back
at Christ “through nineteen centuries of Catholic darkness,” what they
saw was “only the reflection of their Liberal Protestant face, seen at
the bottom of a deep well” (as quoted in Bryan, 1996, p. 339).
Interestingly, the homosexual community feels that the traditional
“hetero-normative” Jesus is a reflection of heterosexual Christians who
have read into Jesus their own sexuality, while ignoring the possibility
that Jesus was a homosexual. Rollan McCleary, an Australian academic
who recently wrote a book arguing that Jesus and His disciples were gay,
was asked if his own homosexuality tainted his research. McCleary
replied: “You could see that either way. You could also say that
heterosexual people have their eyes wide shut on the matter, that they
don’t want to see that Jesus would have been of a gay disposition…. You
maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research
things which other people wouldn’t” (as quoted in Johns, 2001). Lately,
gay scholars have seen many things in the Bible that heterosexuals have
apparently missed for the past 2,000 years.
Several works, both scholarly and popular, have been published in the
last decade suggesting that Jesus was gay. In 1992, J. Robert Williams,
the first actively homosexual priest in the Episcopal Church, penned a
book titled
Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian. Six years later, gay playwright Terrance McNally wrote the play
Corpus Christi,
which featured a gay Jesus (named Joshua) and his “sexual adventures
with his 12 disciples” (“Was Jesus Gay?—Terrance…,” 1998). These popular
works have been followed by several scholarly investigations that
attempt to argue Jesus’ homosexuality from biblical and theological
evidence. The same year McNally’s play went up, Finnish scholar Martti
Nissinen released his book,
Homoeroticism in the Biblical World,
judged by some to be the best work yet published on the subject. The
twenty-first century has witnessed an eruption of these sorts of
studies, some more respectable than others. McCleary’s 2003 book,
Signs for a Messiah,
is based largely on John’s Gospel and Christ’s astrological chart.
Theodore Jennings looks to liberation and feminist theologies to
construct a more “homocentric” gospel narrative in his 2002 volume,
The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament. Queering Christ,
Robert Goss’ semi-autobiographical telling of his homosexual guilt and
expulsion from the Roman Catholic Church, might also be mentioned. The
marked increase in these types of publications in the last five years is
an indication of Western society’s growing acceptance of homosexuality.
Typically, these books begin by dispensing in one way or another with
the five explicit biblical injunctions against homosexuality (Leviticus
18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). Some
carefully attempt to explain away the passages in question, blaming the
sexual biases of the ancient world for adversely influencing the Bible
writers, while others dismiss the offending verses with a simple wave of
the hand. After dealing with the negative commands, these scholars turn
to the gospel narratives to develop their own “reading” of the
traditional Gospel story. Jesus’ life is deconstructed to shed “new
light” on His attitude toward same-sex relationships and His own
homosexuality—postmodern hermeneutics at their best. Despite a complete
absence of biblical support for their thesis, most of these liberal
scholars do not have to read very far to find what they are looking for
(in the jargon of biblical interpretation, this is known as eisegesis).
British homosexual advocate Peter Tatchell summed up one popular
position in a 1998 press release:
We don’t know for sure whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or
celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church’s presumption
that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having
desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ
cannot be ruled out (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998).
Tatchell’s quote illustrates that the argument for Jesus’ homosexuality
finds its strongest support, not in Scripture, but in its silence.
Homosexual advocates argue that the absence of any explicit commentary
on Jesus’ sexuality ought to remove the ancient assumption that He was
heterosexual. Demonstrating to their own satisfaction that there is
nothing in the New Testament that necessitates Jesus’ heterosexuality,
these scholars move on in search of passages favoring Jesus’
homosexuality, the “signals” that McCleary mentioned. Unfortunately for
them, biblical references to support their political thesis are few and
circumstantial. Most are vague and focus on men whom Jesus “loved,” such
as Lazarus (John 11:36), the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:21), John (John
21:20), and the “beloved disciple” (John 20:2). Love in these contexts
is interpreted as homoerotic love. Further evidence is supposedly found
in Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant in Luke 7:1-10. Because the
text says the servant was “dear to him,” it is alleged that centurion
and his servant were gay lovers. That Jesus healed him is presented as
proof that He condoned their homosexual relationship (cf. Horner, 1978;
Jennings, 2003).
These arguments are supplemented by the censorship hypothesis to which
Tatchell alluded: “Large chunks of Jesus’s life are missing from the
Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church
sanitised the gospels, removing references to Christ’s sexuality that
were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to
promote” (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998). Some scholars believe that
the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life contained homosexual
references not found in the canonical gospels that we possess. These
passages allegedly were censored by “hetero-normative” church leaders of
the first few centuries who felt that homosexuality was an abomination.
Though this may sound conspiratorial, proponents do put forth some
evidence in support their theory (in contrast to the usual wild
speculation), evidence that some scholars have accepted as valid. This
evidence—which nearly every Christian homosexual advocate uses to
support the cause—is the so-called “Secret Gospel of Mark.”
Secret Mark (as I shall call it) is one of several apocryphal gospels
that circulated in the early centuries of the Christian era. These
alternative accounts of Jesus’ life range from a few verses to entire
books. Some, such as the
Gospel of Thomas and the
Gospel of Mary Magdelene,
have received much attention, but most are obscure and known only by
New Testament scholars. Secret Mark is unique among these in that it
claims to be an expanded version of the canonical gospel of Mark, not an
independent gospel. It contains two passages, otherwise unrecorded in
the gospel accounts—the first fitting between Mark 10:34 and 10:35 and
the second in the middle of Mark 10:46. Fragment 1 reads:
And they came to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother
was dead. And she came and fell down before Jesus and said to him: Son
of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And in anger
Jesus went away with her into the garden where the tomb was; and
immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Jesus went forward
and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And immediately he
went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him
up, grasping him by the hand. But the young man looked upon him and
loved him, and began to entreat him that he might remain with him. And
when they had gone out from the tomb, they went into the young man’s
house; for he was rich. And after six days Jesus commissioned him; and
in the evening the young man came to him, clothed only in linen cloth
upon his naked body. And he remained with him that night; for Jesus was
teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And from there he went
away and returned to the other bank of the Jordan.
Fragment 2 describes what purportedly happened in Jericho:
He came to Jericho. And there were there the sisters of the young man
whom Jesus loved, and his mother and Salome; and Jesus did not receive
them.
These fragments were found in a letter seemingly written in the late
second century by Clement of Alexandria to an unknown Christian named
Theodore. Clement wrote in response to questions Theodore had sent him
regarding a heretical gnostic sect called the Carpocratians. This sect
is known from Irenaeus and Eusebius, and was characterized by its belief
in metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. Carpocratians believed
that a soul could not be liberated until it had experienced all aspects
of earthly life—including all aspects of sexual activity. Theodore had
asked Clement about some of the scripture they were using to justify
their actions, particularly some passages from Mark’s gospel. Clement
responded by explaining that there were actually three versions of the
book of Mark circulating in Alexandria: the canonical version, used by
“those who were being instructed,” the secret version, reserved for
those “who were being perfected,” and the Carpocratian version.
According to Clement, Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, where he spoke
directly with the apostle Peter. After Peter’s death, Mark moved to
Alexandria, bringing with him his research notes. There, he “composed a
more spiritual gospel” by expanding his original gospel to include
mystical truths for the spiritual benefit of enlightened Christians (the
orthodox congregation in Alexandria over which Clement presided also
tended toward gnosticism). This secret gospel was then stolen by a rogue
elder in the church and given to Carpocrates, who added to it his own
“blasphemous and carnal doctrine.” Theodore needed to know how to
distinguish genuine Mark from the corrupted version, which they used to
legitimize their sexual license. Apparently, Carpocrates had
strengthened the innuendo in Fragment 1 by adding “naked man with naked
man,” a phrase Clement assured Theodore was not in the original text
(1.67-68).
It is Fragment 1, attributed to Mark, that skeptics and homosexual
advocates use as their most potent ammunition in the battle over Jesus’
sexual orientation. Morton Smith, the scholar who discovered and
catalogued the letter from Clement, was the first to suggest that Secret
Mark might indicate that Jesus’ teachings contained erotic elements. He
based this on three observations from the text: (1) the description of
the young man’s affection for Jesus: “the young man looked upon him and
loved him, and began to entreat him that he might remain with him;” (2)
the young man’s attire (or lack thereof): “in the evening the young man
came to him, clothed only in linen cloth upon his naked body;” and (3)
Clement’s denial of the phrase “naked man with naked man” (Hendrick,
2003, p. 142). Smith tied this speculation regarding Jesus’
homosexuality into his theory that the historical Jesus was a
charismatic magician Who baptized His disciples (
contra John 4:2) into His secret mystery cult. It is worthwhile to quote his theory at length:
…[F]rom the scattered indications in the canonical Gospels and the
secret Gospel or Mark, we can put together a picture of Jesus’ baptism,
“the mystery of the kingdom of God.” It was a water baptism administered
by Jesus to chosen disciples, singly and by night. The costume, for the
disciple, was a linen cloth worn over the naked body. This cloth was
probably removed for the baptism proper, the immersion in water, which
was now reduced to a preparatory purification. After that, by unknown
ceremonies, the disciple was possessed by Jesus’ spirit and so united
with Jesus. One with him, he participated by hallucination in Jesus’
ascent into the heavens, he entered the kingdom of God, and was thereby
set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world. Freedom from
the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by
physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of gnostic
Christianity; how early it began there is no telling (as quoted in Eyer,
1995).
Smith was a scholar of some repute, known for his depth of classical
knowledge and linguistic abilities. Despite his credentials, the initial
reaction of the scholarly community toward this radical theory was one
of strong distaste. Eyer catalogued some of the most reputable scholars’
remarks concerning Smith’s interpretation: “…a morbid concatenation of
fancies…” (Skehan); “…venal popularization…” “…replete with innuendos
and eisegesis…” (Fitzmeyer); “…an a priori principle of selective
credulity…” (Achtemeier); “…in the same niche with Allegro’s mushroom
fantasies and Eisler’s salmagundi” (Danker). Many more quotations could
be listed (Eyer, 1995).
Though Smith’s magician theory has never gained much of a following in
the academic world, his suggestion that Jesus practiced sexual
initiation rituals was too sensational to be forgotten. Skeptics have
used Smith’s innovative hypothesis to debunk Christianity as a religion
of arch-hypocrites who denounce the very lifestyle of their founder.
Pointing to Matthew 19:12, these enemies of the cross accuse Christ of
posing as a eunuch in order to satisfy his lasciviousness. By preaching
celibacy, Jesus was able to disguise His true intentions of having
sexual relations with His followers. According to one particularly
vicious attacker, “Jesus was never a eunuch as the Christians sham but a
gay lecher feigning to be a eunuch by the help of his warriors
(disciples and other Christians)” [Atrott, 2002]. Another skeptic turned
Smith’s suggestion into a certainty: “The plain meaning of the words
naked man with naked man and
whom Jesus loved
support the conclusion that Sexual union with a man as part of the
sacrament was practiced” (Kahn, 2004, emp. in orig.). A final quote from
an anonymous agnostic reads: “[The Clement letter] makes references to
the effect that Jesus was understood to have engaged in possible
homosexual practices involving the ‘rich young man’ mentioned in Mark’s
Gospel. I am making the point that the Christian hierarchy have been
deceiving and lying to their followers right from the start” (as quoted
in Miller, 1999).
The skeptics quoted above are not scholars, and they have little or no
training in biblical interpretation (or so it seems from their
writings). In the main, scholars pay more attention to the dry details
of the lexicography and historical analysis of Secret Mark and Clement’s
letter. As noted by Hendrick, “homosexual acts by Jesus should be a
non-issue for a historian, though one may appreciate ecclesiastical
concerns about the contexts of the texts” (2003, p. 142). Nevertheless,
as is indicated by the brief bibliography above (and a quick search of
Amazon.com), the homosexuality insinuated in Secret Mark is very much an
issue for several influential writers. For those seeking biblical
approval for homosexuality, Secret Mark has become a secret weapon.
Yet does this passage prove that Jesus was gay? In no way! The three
observations on which this assumption rests must be examined:
-
The language of the young man. While it is true that the young man
(thought by some to be the rich young ruler mentioned earlier in Mark 10
[see Meyer, 2001]) “looked upon Jesus and loved Him,” there is no
suggestion in the text that this was an erotic love. It is not uncommon
to read of Jesus loving others—both men and women. He loved the young
ruler, John, and Lazurus, but He also loved Mary and Martha (John 11:5).
The love of the young man toward Jesus was doubtless of the same nature
as the love Jesus had for the world (John 3:16) and for His heavenly
Father (John 17:23)—the pure, dispassionate love that ultimately results
in sacrifice (John 15:13). If we are to understand love (agapaô)
as sexual love, then the New Testament commands to “love your enemies”
and “love your neighbor,” and Jesus’ instruction to His disciples to
“love one another” as He had loved them must take on an entirely new
meaning
-
The attire of the young man. The young man was wearing a linen garment (sindon)
in the fashion of the Greeks, which would not have been unusual.
According to Miller, “the rich man would not have worn his woolen outer
garment inside the house necessarily, and there still is nothing to
suggest any disrobing or even physical contact” (1999). The phrasing
“clothed only in a linen cloth wrapped around his naked body” is also
not unique; the Greek phrase is exactly the same as Mark 14:51, the
account of the young man fleeing from Gethsemane. It has even been
suggested that this similar phrasing is intentional, and indicates that
these two men are one in the same (see Meyer, 2001). The linen garment
he was wearing also was used by Jews as a burial shroud (see Mark
15:46), so it is possible that the young man was wearing the robe as a
result of his time in the tomb (see Fragment 1).
-
The denial of Clement. Clement stressed to Theodore that the phrase
“naked man with naked man” was absent from the genuine text of Mark, and
we have no reason to doubt his word. The phrase is only mentioned
because it seems to have been included in the Carpocration version of
Mark, which, according to Clement, was manipulated by those heretics to
justify their libertine practices.
Summing up his examination of Fragment 1, Miller concluded: “One simply cannot find any real clues to
any
kind of sexual contact, content, or intent in this passage. It is pure
speculation (and counter to what we know of the culture and history of
the day) to somehow imagine these words to refer to homosexual behavior”
(1999, emp. in orig.). The Greco-Roman literature to which Miller
alluded made no secret of homosexual love. Erotic references in those
works are never subtle, but always explicit. Plato’s
Symposium narrates a dinner party of philosophers discussing love (
eros).
Aristophanes, one of the guests, unabashedly notes that “all who are
male slices pursue the males; and while they are boys…they are friendly
to men and enjoy lying down together with and embracing men.” In
Lives of the Caesars,
the Latin historian Seutonius described the alleged sexual
indisgressions of Rome’s emperors more explicitly than can be quoted
here. The Ancients were not embarrassed to record sexually explicit
material, and “the absence of such images and terminology would
constitute a
prima facie case
against seeing it in [Fragment 1]” (Miller, 1999, emp. in orig.). Thus, these passages in no way endorse the theory that Jesus was gay.
That these passages are even relevant rests on the assumption that
Secret Mark was the original gospel, and that canonical Mark is a
censored version of the longer original—an assumption that most scholars
are not willing to make. “Most scholars consider [Secret Mark] to be an
expansion of the canonical Gospel, as Clement himself believed” (Brown,
2003, p. 89). The story related in Fragment 1 is a blend of a Markan
and Johannine elements, containing phrases and allusions probably
clipped directly from these other works. It superficially resembles the
story of the raising of Lazarus in John 11:17-44, but the details are so
confused that it evidently is not a legitimate parallel. A close
examination reveals that nearly every phrase in Fragment 1 has been
lifted from another part of Mark or from one of the other gospels,
usually John. Bruce lists these identical phrases at length, finally
concluding that the fragment from Secret Mark is a patchwork of phrases
from Mark and John. “The fact that the expansion is such a pastiche…with
its internal contradiction and confusion, indicates that it is a
thoroughly artificial composition, quite out of keeping with Mark’s
quality as a story-teller” (1988, p. 308). Though this pattern does not
fit Mark, it is what would be expected from an ordinary gnostic text,
such as Papyrus Egerton 2 (see Schneemelcher, 1991, 1:107).
Further suspicion is cast on these fragments by comparing the language
of Secret Mark to canonical Mark. The vocabulary and syntax of Secret
Mark very closely resemble the style of Mark: in fact, they resemble it a
little too closely. Schneemelcher noted: “[E]ven the Marcan character
of the fragment is not without its problems. ‘The style is certainly
Mark’s, but it is too Marcan to be Mark’; such was already C.C.
Richardson’s verdict in 1974, and E. Best in 1979 confirmed this
judgment in detail. In Mark itself the Marcan peculiarities of style are
nowhere so piled up as in the ‘secret Gospel’!” (1991, 1:107).
Scott Brown, on the basis of redaction criticism, also rejected the
originality of Secret Mark. Fragment 1 upsets the neat pattern of Mark’s
three passion predictions (Mark 8:31-9:1; 9:31-37; 10:33-45). According
to redaction critics, the three cycles are framed by the two accounts
of Jesus healing blind men (Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52). In each passage,
Jesus predicts His coming death and resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34),
the disciples fail to comprehend Jesus’ prophecy (8:32; 9:32-34;
10:35-41), and Jesus responds by teaching a lesson on discipleship
(8:34-9:1; 9:35-37; 10:42-45) [Brown, p. 102]. However, when the Secret
Mark fragment is inserted between 8:34 and 8:35, the entire pattern is
thrown off balance. “What is essential to note about this tight,
logical, and highly structured pattern is that the inclusion of
[Fragment] 1 disrupts the logic and the parallelism” (Brown, p. 103).
Apart from these considerations, most scholars do not consider Clement
to be an accurate source of information. Recall that Secret Mark is
known only from Clement’s letter to Theodore; it is not mentioned in any
other patristic writing. Clement was notorious for accepting fake
documents and fake traditions (Parker, 1973, p. 237). “Keen as Clement
was on opposing what he regarded as heretical, he seems to have been
uncritical almost to the point of gullibility in accepting material
which chimed in with his own predilections” (France, 1986, p. 83).
Clement quoted from non-canonical sources more than most patristic
writers, and was particularly fond of gnostic sources such as the
Gospel According to the Hebrews, the
Gospel of the Egyptians, the
Preaching of Peter, and the
Apocalypse of Peter (Bruce, pp. 310-311). Clement quoted the
Gospel of Thomas
no less than six times, whereas no other patristic writer quoted it
more than once (France, p. 83). In other words, just because Clement
quoted Secret Mark and claimed that Mark wrote it does not mean that it
is legitimate. All evidence suggests that it was the product of
Alexandrian Gnostics, not the writer of the Gospel of Mark
(Schneemelcher, 1:107).
Thus far I have demonstrated that the Secret Gospel of Mark lends no
support to the contention that Jesus was gay, or that He endorsed
homosexuality in any way. The Secret Mark that Clement quoted was
probably a heretical text written long after the four canonical gospels,
and actually constructed from bits and pieces of them. However, the
most compelling part of the story has yet to be told. Just as scholars
doubt the authenticity of Clement’s quotation of Mark, so they also
doubt Morton Smith’s discovery of the letter. Nearly 50 years after his
discovery, most scholars believe it to have been a fraud. Here is the
story.
In 1958, while searching for old manuscripts in the ancient monastery
of Mar Saba, about 12 miles southeast of Jerusalem, Smith made a
startling find. On the back leaves of the 1646 Dutch edition of
Ireneaus’ letters, scrawled in an 18
th-century
hand, was Clement’s letter to Theodore, containing the Secret Gospel of
Mark. Smith, then assistant professor of history at Columbia
University, was not allowed to remove the book from the library, so he
carefully photographed the two-and-a-half page document for later
examination. Only after he had transcribed and translated the document
did he realize its worth. Two years later, in December of 1960, he
presented his find to the 96th meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis (Knox, 1960, p. 1). In 1973, he published the
document in two books: one a popular read, called
Secret Mark,
and the other a dense, technical work for scholars, examining in minute
detail every aspect of Clement’s letter and his quotation of Secret
Mark.
Almost immediately, questions were raised as to the genuineness of the
artifact. Though Smith had meticulously amassed evidence demonstrating
the authenticity of the letter, several of Smith’s closest associates
believed the document to be a forgery. Arthur Darby Nock, Smith’s own
professor, famously called the manuscript a “mystification for the sake
of mystification” (as quoted in Quesnell, 1975, p. 54)—in other words, a
fake for the sake of faking it. Jacob Neusner, Smith’s student at
Columbia, also doubted the letter’s authenticity, calling it “the
forgery of the century” (as quoted in Miller, 1999). Several scholars
have confidently reached this consensus (Brown, Skehan, Quesnell), while
several others imply the document was forged without laying any
explicit charges (Metzger, Osborn, Criddle, Ehrman). Many clues point to
a deliberate “mystification” by Smith.
-
No copy of the original manuscript exists. Smith photographed the
pages while at the monastery library, but was unable to obtain the
actual document. Only one other set of photographs has been made (see
Hendrick and Olympiou, 2000), and the original document has since
vanished—either lost, sequestered, or destroyed by the Greek Orthodox
monks of Mar Saba. It is peculiar that Smith, an expert in ancient
manuscripts, spent 13 years of his life examining a photograph of the
letter without ever going back to the monastery to examine it further
(Ehrman, 2003, p. 85). If only we possessed the original document, ink
samples could be taken and dated, and the whole matter would be cleared
up in hours; as it stands, we must rely on the paleographer’s estimation
of the handwriting in a black and white photograph. There is as much
physical evidence at this moment for the Mar Saba letter as there is for
the Loch Ness Monster.
-
The letter is undocumented in contemporary sources, and its contents
are highly dubious. The manuscript contains no source, even though we
would expect an educated 18th-century scholar to acknowledge the
provenance of such an important text (see Schneemelcher, 1:107). So it
is with Clement’s original epistle. The Mar Saba letter was the first
letter of Clement ever discovered (though we have several other works by
him). No extant ancient document mentions Clement’s letter to Theodore,
nor does Clement himself mention it in any of his authenticated
writings. Nowhere does Clement mention alternative forms of the
scriptures such as Secret Mark, and while he often speaks of a
spiritually elite corp of Christians, they were elite because they more
deeply understood the canonical scripture, not some spiritually advanced
version of them. Furthermore, Clement encourages Theodore to deny
Secret Mark with an oath if necessary, though in his other writings he
declares that Christians ought never to swear. Other dissimilarities
abound (see Ehrman, pp. 84-86).
-
There are no major copyists’ errors in the manuscript (Schneemelcher,
1:107). The more frequently early Christian documents were copied, the
more mistakes were introduced. If the Clement letter is authentic, it
was written in the 3rd century and copied until the 18th, when it was
finally reproduced on the back cover of Issac Voss’s Writings of Irenaeus.
It is highly unlikely that a manuscript could be copied by hand for
fifteen centuries without accumulating at least a few scribal errors.
-
Circumstantial clues cast suspicion on the entire project. In some
ways, this just feels like a forgery. (The following points are taken
primarily from Ehrman, 2003.) The vocabulary in the letter is more
Clement-like than any other of Clement’s writings, as if the author of
the letter had at hand Stählin’s concordance to Clement, written in 1936
(Quesnell, p. 64). Also, the manuscript ends just as it gets to the
most tantalizing part; the letter breaks off: “But the many other things
about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications. Now the
true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy….” Just
as the letter prepares to reveal “the truth,” it conveniently ends. The
dedication of the books also is mysterious. Smith dedicates the
technical work to his teacher, Arthur Darby Nock, the man who went to
his grave believing the letter to be a forgery; Secret Mark,
Smith’s popular description of the letter, is dedicated to “the one who
knows.” Quesnell rightly asks, “Who is ‘the one who knows’? What does he
know?” (p. 66). Ehrman also observed from Smith’s photographs a page of
text from the book in which Clement’s letter had been copied. Issac
Voss, the editor of the 17th-century collection of Ireneaus’ epistles,
concluded his book with a warning against scholars who falsify texts and
attempt to pass off spurious ones as genuine (p. 87). Directly across
from that warning, on the first blank leaf at the end of the book,
Clement’s letter begins. The irony is too rich to be coincidence.
-
It must finally be noted that Smith was himself a homosexual, a
potential motive for the forgery. The historian Donald Akenson
considered Smith’s two books to be nothing more than “a nice ironic gay
joke at the expense of all the self-important scholars who not only miss
the irony, but believe that this alleged piece of gospel comes to us in
the first-known letter of the great Clement of Alexandria” (as quoted
in Ehrman, p. 267, n. 19).
Literary forgeries are nothing new. In the first few centuries of the
church, many documents were produced in the name of Peter, Paul, or
John. Even today it is not unusual to hear of a scholar trying to pass
off a document just to see if it can be done. Bruce Metzger described
his own professor at Princeton, Paul Coleman-Norton, who claimed to have
found a lost saying of Jesus in an old Latin manuscript of the gospel
of Matthew he picked up in French Morocco in 1943. It purportedly
continued Jesus’ conversation with His disciples in Matthew 24:51, where
He taught that the lost would be “cast into the outer darkness where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” One of the disciples
asked, “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
Jesus replied, “Oh you of little faith! Do not be troubled. If some have
no teeth, teeth will be provided.” Thus Professor Coleman-Norton
preserved in an “authentic” text a little joke that he had often told
his classes, that dentures would be provided in hell to those who had no
teeth (Ehrman, p. 69). Yet some scholars were temporarily hoodwinked,
and his findings were published in the
Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
Even though such influential scholars as Metzger and Nock have ruled
Secret Mark a fake, some scholars continue to cling to the hope that it
is authentic. The subject lately has been revisited after many years of
dormancy (see Meyer, 2001; Brown, 2003; Hendrick, 2003; Eyer, 2004). I
suspect this may be attributed to the increasing popularity of the
homosexual cause with the academic world, yet this is speculation. It is
certain, however, that those who are currently turning to the Bible for
support of homosexuality are making use of Secret Mark, even though the
authenticity of the text provides no evidence for the homosexual case.
Even if Clement’s letter is genuine, it remains doubtful that the
quotation from Secret Mark is anything other than a gnostic
construction. Moreover, if the letter could be proved to be credible,
and the “lost” scripture turned out to be original, homosexual advocates
would remain without biblical support for their cause. Neither the
fragment nor the Bible indicates that God condones the homosexual
lifestyle. Though the gospel writers do not discuss Jesus’ sexuality
specifically, the whole of divine revelation testifies to the utter
degradation and sinfulness of homosexuality (see Miller, et al., 2004),
and to the absolute purity and sinlessness of Christ (2 Corinthians
5:21; Hebrews 4:15). The only evidence in the Bible in favor of
homosexuality is that which is read into the text by interpreters trying
to shape a Jesus Who approves of their sinful lifestyle. As Christians
defending God’s truth, we must be informed of these matters so that we
are not taken off-guard by those who would pervert the gospel of Christ
to their own ends (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
REFERENCES
Atrott, Hans Henning (2002), “Lazarus’ ‘Resurrection’—Another Futile Provocation of Agent Provocateur Jesus Christ,”
Debunking Jesus Christ, [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/trailofjesus/ew123.htm.
Brown, Scott (2003), “On the Composition History of the Longer (‘Secret’) Gospel of Mark,”
Journal of Biblical Literature, 122[1]:89-110.
Bruce, F.F. (1988),
The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity).
Bryan, Christopher (1996), “Discerning Our Origins: Reflections on the Work of the Jesus Seminar,”
Sewanee Theological Review, 39[4]:339-348.
Ehrman, Bart (2003),
Lost Christianities (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Eyer, Shawn (1995), “The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark,”
Alexandria: The Journal for the Western Cosmological Traditions, 3:103-129.
France, R.T. (1986),
The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity).
Goss, Robert (2002),
Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted Up (Plymouth, MI: Pilgrim Press).
Hendrick, Charles and Nikolaos Olympiou (2000), “Secret Mark,”
The Fourth R, 13[5]:3-16.
Hendrick, Charles (2003), “The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy,”
Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11[2]:133-145.
Horner, Thomas (1978),
Jonathon Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
Jennings, Theodore (2003),
The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press).
Johns, Matt (2001), “Was Jesus Gay?,”
metroG Newlines, [On-line], URL: http://metrog.com/headline/articles04/042001_jesusgay.html.
Khan, Jerome (2004), “Jesus Was Gay According to Mark,” [On-line], URL: http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/newtestament/id5.html.
Knox, Sanka (1960), “A New Gospel Ascribed to Mark,”
New York Times, December 30, late edition.
McCleary, Rollan (2003),
Signs for a Messiah: the First and Last Evidence for Jesus (Christchurch, New Zealand: Hazard Press).
Meyer, Marvin (2001), “The Youth in the
Secret Gospel of Mark,”
Semeia, 49[1]:129-153.
Miller, Dave, Bert Thompson, and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Examination of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,”
Reason & Revelation, 24:81-88, September.
Miller, Glen (1999), “The Secret Gospel of Mark?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qbadmark.html.
Nissinen, Martti (1998),
Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers).
Parker, Pierson (1973), “An Early Christian Cover-up?”
New York Times, July 22, late edition.
Quesnell, Quentin (1975), “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence,”
Catholic Bible Quarterly, 37[1]:48-67.
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (1991),
New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
“Was Jesus Gay? Missing Fragments from St. Mark’s Gospel” (1998),
Outrage!, [On-line], URL: http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=37.
“Was Jesus Gay?—Terrence McNally’s new play, Corpus Christi, defended” (1998),
Outrage! [On-line], URL: http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=43.
Williams, J. Robert (1992),
Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian (New York: Random House).
On
June 18, 2012, well-known and much-read atheistic blogger Leah Libresco
put out a blog post titled: “This Is My Last Post for the Patheos
Atheist Portal” (Merica, 2012). In the post, Libresco explained that she
was no longer writing for the atheist portal because she is no longer
an atheist. During the months prior to the post, her mental struggles
and rational investigations led her to the conclusion that God exists
(Libresco, 2012).
that
purport to alter the foundational doctrines of the Christian religion
is endless. Most recently, a papyrus fragment written in Coptic that
dates to the fourth century has created a stir. Among its eight badly
faded lines are two phrases, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’” and a
second provocative clause that is believed to say, “she will be able to
be my disciple” (Goodstein, 2012). No matter how tentative and flimsy
the evidence, liberal scholars and atheists glory in any item that might
discredit Christ and Christianity. Yet, even the lead expert on the
fragment, historian at the Harvard Divinity School, Karen King,
repeatedly cautioned that it “should not be taken as proof that Jesus,
the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question” (Goodstein, emp. added).
Perhaps
you recall in 2009 the media hype about the discovery of an alleged
“missing link” fossilized skeleton, dubbed “Ida” (Franzen, et al.,
2009). The media boldly issued statements, with no disclaimers, such as,
“Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor” (Public
Library of Science, 2009). Ida was added to the list of alleged missing
links in the line between humans and our supposed distant primate
ancestor—one by one of which have proven to be false, though many have
not gotten the memos on the matter. ScienceDaily unabashedly
dubbed Ida “a transitional species,” as though the case had been closed,
and the truth had been conclusively substantiated (2009). In 2009, Jorn
Hurum, world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist of the Oslo Natural
History Museum and co-discoverer of Ida, said, “This is the first link
to all humans…truly a fossil that links world heritage” (Public Library
of Science, 2009). Philip Gingerich of the Museum of Paleontology at the
University of Michigan and co-discoverer of Ida said, “It’s really a
kind of Rosetta Stone” (Public Library of Science, 2009). Pretty
grandiose claims, to be sure, but hardly uncommon among evolutionary
paleontologists today, who tend to be quick to claim evidence for
evolutionary theory without adequate evidence. According to ScienceDaily,
Ida lacked “two of the key anatomical features found in lemurs: a
grooming claw on the second digit of the foot, and a fused row of teeth
in the middle of her lower jaw known as a toothcomb” (2009). Instead,
supposedly Ida’s talus bone linked her to humans, which “has the same
shape as in humans today” (Public Library of Science, 2009). The 2009 ScienceDaily
article ended with a bold quote from broadcaster and naturalist Sir
David Attenborough: “The little creature is going to show us our
connection with all the rest of the mammals. The link they would have
said until now is missing…it is no longer missing” (2009).