stephan huller

I know I seem to betray too much of an interest in homosexuality and transvestitism in earliest Christianity but I think such questions are critical for making sense of the Letter to Theodore. Is a second century Alexandrian 'gospel with a gay vibe' impossible? Is the only explanation for such a phenomenon attributing the composition of the text to its discoverer (a man who never married and was apparently an eccentric individual)?

I have read, listened and attempted to track down all the substantive arguments in favor of the 'hoax hypothesis' (i.e. that Morton Smith fabricated the manuscript). I used to think that Stephen Carlson's 'forger's tremor' might have some credibility until two Greek scholars (Agamemnon Tselikas through a personal correspondance) dismissed the claim as untenable.

So what are we left with? Whenever I come into contact with those who subscribe to the 'hoax hypothesis' - and I have had contact with many of these people - I get the sense that it all comes down to the 'gay vibe' they see as present in the text of the gospel cited towards the end of the letter. They seem to have difficulty articulating exactly what bothers them about this, but the very idea of an Alexandrian gospel with a 'gay vibe' doesn't sit right with them.

Perhaps some of this has to do with the fact that Clement attacks homosexuality in the Instructor. It is unfortunate that the online English translations deliberately translate the original Greek into Latin so people would hear what Clement actually says. I have read the material many times and do not feel that it presents any difficulties for accepting the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore.

Yet the problem remains - is the idea of an Alexandrian Christian gospel with a 'gay vibe' attested at the end of the second century an impossibility? How impossible is it?

Is it as impossible as Clement using a cell phone? No, it is not as impossible as Clement having a smart phone.

Is it as impossible as Clement being a fiction created by Eusebius in the fourth century? No, it is not as impossible as Clement being a fourth century fiction.

So how impossible is the idea that Clement - as a Platonist - preferred above all other gospels a text which had something like this 'added' to it:

I think it is absolutely certain that something like this 'gospel with a gay vibe' existed because I have found what I think is an attestation or a witness to it in Stromata Book 5. The difficulty is that the reader has to be aware of the 'gay vibe' at the heart of Plato's Phaedrus.

So here is Clement's witness to the idea that at least one disciple 'loved' Jesus in a Platonic manner (and where 'Platonic love' does not mean what we commonly attribute to it - i.e. 'sexless' love - but in fact, as Clement would certainly know, 'love' with a 'gay vibe'). First Clement cites from a section of the Phaedrus where everyone knows Plato likens the divine love that takes the individual up to heaven with pederastic affection and then goes through a series of allusions to the aforementioned 'Platonic love' until at last hitting upon a scene from a gospel we no longer possess where a disciple is said to have possessed such love for Jesus and moreover is the basis for Christian redemption.

We start then with Clement's reference to the Phaedrus:

The image here is clearly that of man creating by another man ('like with like'). Yes, of course there are many ways of pretending all of what we know Plato said was not understood or accepted by Clement but notice how he can quickly change gears and use the love conception at the heart of the Phaedrus to describe 'true Christian love':

I do not understand what people think Clement is talking about here if not a sublimated form of the homoerotic experience. This is Plato's point in the Phaedrus and Clement - as a Platonizing Christian - had to have sought a gospel narrartive that justified his extensive efforts to identify Jesus as the paedagogue of some disciple - presumably Mark given the Alexandrian provenance of his tradition. Maybe the text was pre-existent. Maybe Clement created the text himself and attributed it to 'St Mark.' The only question that matters here is whether or not such a gospel was compatible with Clement's belief system and exegetical method, which I certainly think is true.

Now I am not claiming that Jesus was gay. Nor that St. Mark claimed that he had a homosexual experience with Jesus. This is where scholarship falls off the tracks (undoubtedly because they are unconfortable with the possibilities that exist in the text). In order for the Letter to Theodore to be accepted as 'authentic' the question of whether 'the Secret Gospel of Mark' was really written by an apostle or was 'apostolic' must be left to the side. The only question there is - now that the manuscript is lost - is whether the document reflects the thoughts and beliefs of Clement. And I think that there is no question that it does, given the aforementioned citation from the Fifth Book of the Stromateis.

So again I ask, how impossible is it that the Platonizing Clement possessed a gospel which he admits was developed at Alexandria subsequent to the original composition of the gospel of Mark, where 'mystic narratives' were added and from which Clement's own Platonizing interpretations of the gospel were ultimately justified? I think it is absolutely certain that something like 'Secret Mark' must have been in Clement's possession. I think that the connection with the Carpocratians is decisive in this matter because they are inevitably identified as (a) misinterpreting the gospel in terms of a Platonist exegesis and (b) a homosexual agenda.

I have already demonstrated in a previous thread that Clement was aware of anti-Alexandrian propaganda developed in Rome which attacked Christianity for (a) misinterpreting Plato (viz. Celsus) and (b) for engaging in homosexual rituals (viz. Marcus Cornelius Fronto). In both cases, original material attacking 'Christians' (i.e. Alexandrian Christians) is reworked into a critique of 'Carpocratians,' a specifically Christian garbling of Celsus's original reference to 'Harpocratians.' In other words, Celsus says 'Christians' outside of the 'great Church' abuse Plato to misinterpret Mark 10:17 - 31, Clement in Stomateis Book Three develops this argument so as to represent a feature of the Carpocratians. Similarly Fronto apparently wrote that 'Christians' extinguish lamps to engage in orgies and homosexual rites, Clement redirects these claims against Carpocratians in Stromateis Book Three and to Theodore.

Yet the original reports when read together make clear that the Christians of Alexandria had 'homosexual rites' developed from a misapplication of their Platonic interpretation of their gospel. What gospel is this? It has to be 'Secret Mark' or something like it. Clement clearly shared a non-canonical gospel with the Carpocratians (Strom. 3). It has to be Secret Mark or something like 'Secret Mark,' Mark being the very 'pontiff' whose (severed?) penis is said to be worshipped by the faithful in Minucius Felix's Octavius (and which Cook and many other scholars assume was appropriated from Fronto's original Oration against Christians during the reign of Marcus Aurelius).

My question why - given all the contemporary evidence in favor of a Christianity with a 'gay vibe' - is Clement's 'gospel with a gay vibe' so incredible? Why is it more likely that Morton Smith forged the manuscript when his handwriting doesn't match that of the forger and moreover he has been demonstrated not to possess the ability to pull of the 'hoax'?

GakuseiDon

Not sure if it may be a tangent, but how was homosexuality viewed by the Romans and Greeks of the day? I've read in some modern authors how homosexuality was apparently encouraged amongst the army to allow the men to form stronger bonds and thus fight harder, but I've also read in others that it was frowned upon. Is this a well-settled question in modern scholarship?

If the pagan side didn't have a problem with homosexuality, then that additional freedom may have encouraged some Hellenized Christians (no pun intended) to have their own view of the Gospels with a 'gay vibe'.

stephan huller

I think you are asking the right question. Obviously, it is difficult to reconcile homosexuality with Judaism - although not impossible (especially when the Sadducees and the Samaritans viewed only the ten utterances as having been established by God; the other six hundred and three being established only on the authority of Moses). And I am not sure that either Plato or Secret Mark sanctioned carnal relations between men. The point would be that agape - the divinely sanctioned 'love' between man and God - is sublimated eros. I think. I have to research this some more but I suspect that this would be the case.

mountainman

Hi stephan,

Since I have recently, briefly read up on the "Secret Gospel of Mark", I might offer a few suggestions to these questions. But firstly, according to this translation, lets examine the beginning of this "discovered letter":




So the author wants us to think this text was authored by "Clement", and addressed to Theodore.


The author is talking about the "heretics".
He is saying that even if the heretic should say some thing true,
the orthodox should not agree with this truth.



This is deliberate waffle.
Orthodox truth is truer that truth itself.


The Insertion of the Text into Mark

He states that the "Secret Mark" was characterised by your following quote
being inserted between verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10.

So let's quote Mark 10:34, then your quote (i.e. the described insertion) and then Mark 10:35







So that's the first construction.

What might it all mean?


Analysis of the Specific Construction in Mark


Well, it appears to me that "Clement" wants to tell us that there was a "Secret Gospel of Mark" with the above construction.

The "gay vibe" that is evident in the inserted text, is also obviously meant to be connected to the following verses in Mark. The effect of this is an insinuation that James and John were also interested in the "gay vibe" - and that not only did they want to sit the closest to Jesus, they also wanted Jesus to do for them whatsoever they desire. One might also suppose that the "gay vibe" might also be related to the immediately preceeding verse in Mark, that on the third day Jesus shall rise again.

If you ask me, this CONSTRUCTION is a possible satirization of Jesus and the apostles, and if there is any antiquity at all in the letter, and not a late forgery, then it does not belong in the second century with Clement at all. A non canonical someone is using the name of Clement, to construct a laugh against the canonical church.


The Mar Saba Letter alludes to a "Secret Mark", but with the above express construction. The construction suggests to me that someone was "casting innuendos on Jesus, and, because of its specific placement in Mark, casting the same "innuendos" in turn on James and John, and then upon the rest of the apostles.


Anyway, you might not agree with any of the above observations.




Pete

stephan huller

Well as I am in a mood to share my innermost thoughts, let me say one thing which might interest you. I have been writing lately about the love letters of Marcus Aurelius (to Marcus Cornelius Fronto) and the simiarlities that exist between this body of work and the Mar Saba letter (i.e. that they are typically pushed to the background because they allude to homosexuality).

IF (and what follows is only speculation) it is acknowledged that Clement wrote the letter and IF 'Secret Mark' was in existence during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, could it be that the Roman state's persecution of Christianity had something to do with a suspicion that the gospel was a satire of the Emperor (i.e. 'Mark') and his pedagogue?

I don't think the letter was a satire. Nevertheless it would explain a lot of things about the contemporary age including Clement's silence about the name of the apostle of Alexandria, the disappearance of the document and the persecutions.

Just a thought

andrewcriddle

Most (but not all) Platonists of the period of the Empire rejected/minimized/interpreted away the homosexuality in Plato's works.

Porphyry Life of Plotinus is an example (Whether Diophanes is a genuine Platonist or merely seeking excuses for his exploitative behaviour is unclear)

Plutarch's Amatorius is supposedly relevant but it is not a work I have read.

As for Clement his Platonism is probably too stoic for an interest in Plato's erotic mysticism. (Origen is different here.) With respect to the passages quoted by Stephan, it is probably relevant that, although in the loose quotes of Plato we find eros words, Clement's original composition does not use eros words and prefers agape words.

uses agape words in all three cases. This argues against any idea of sublimated eroticism here. In general early Christians (Origen is an important exception) prefer agape words to eros words.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

The idea that homosexuality was apparently encouraged amongst the army to allow the men to form stronger bonds and thus fight harder, probably refers to the tragic and heroic history of the sacred band of Thebes. (4th century BCE) This is not really relevant to the Imperial period.

stephan huller

Agape is also used in the first addition to Secret Mark (= LGM 1) in the Letter to Theodore, and I have never encountered a critic who promotes the hoax hypothesis that doesn't believe the scene depicts a homosexual scene concocted out of Morton Smith's (perverted) imagination.

The context of the statement demonstrates that Clement is substituting Christian agape for Platonic eros. More significant is whether or not Stromata 5.3 is referencing the passage in Secret Mark. I think it is. I would give in on the issue of whether homosexuality is inferred here if I could get Andrew to concede that Clement is aware of LGM 1 in the Stromateis.

stephan huller

Perhaps it might be useful to cite the passage from Secret Mark which Stephen Carlson, Peter Jeffery and viritually everyone else is convinced is a homosexual reference highlighting its use of ηγαπησεν

I think Stromateis 5.3 is alluding to this passage in Clement's preferred gospel, the 'secret' Gospel of Mark.

stephan huller

The original Greek of Stromata 5.3:

Ἡ γοῦν τῆς ἀγνοίας ἐπίστασις τὸ πρῶτόν ἐστι μάθημα τῷ κατὰ λόγον βαδίζοντι. ἀγνοήσας τις ἐζήτησεν, καὶ ζητήσας εὑρίσκει τὸν διδάσκαλον εὑρών τε ἐπίστευσεν καὶ πιστεύσας ἤλπισεν ἀγαπήσας τε ἐντεῦθεν ἐξομοιοῦται τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ, τοῦτ´ εἶναι σπεύδων ὃ φθάσας ἠγάπησεν,

stephan huller

The usual translation of τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ is 'the beloved' and occurs once in the NT:

Ephesians 1:6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ.
to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he freely bestowed favor on us in the Beloved,