Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

Let's take another look at Prof. Jeffery's volume, and what sorts of arguments he's using in it.

Jeffery, Peter. THE SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK UNVEILED: IMAGINED RITUALS OF SEX, DEATH, AND MADNESS IN A BIBLICAL FORGERY. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007.

Much of this book, of course, represents an extended personal attack against Smith, which is rather unfortunate. Jeffery never met Smith, and neither has he made any effort to interview those who knew him, of whom there's certainly no shortage. So why would he go after him with guns blazing? Can this be considered as a serious scholarly effort? I should hardly think so...

In particular, the sexual innuendo certainly flies around thick and fast all over the place. Jeffery finds a variety of sexual double entendres in various places, and builds his theories on this basis.

The following comes from this long review of Jeffery's book by Scott Brown.

Scott G. Brown, THE SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK UNVEILED, RBL 09/2007
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5627_5944.pdf

According to Jeffery, "Smith's books ... argue that Jesus offered a rite of initiation that allowed repressed homosexuals to become "free ... to engage in homosexuality for all eternity" (194)."

Isn't that nice?

Prof. Jeffery "argues that the Secret Mark, the letter of Clement, and Smith's books about this subject all have the same purpose of depicting Jesus as a homosexual..."

So what are the particulars of Prof. Jeffery's argument? Let's have an example...

"Jeffery's second act of exegetical violence is so implausible as to be disturbing. He asks us to perceive homosexuality in the mere fact that Jesus raised the young man by the hand. There is nothing "afoot" in the double reference to "hand.""

"Jeffery finds evidence for Jesus’ sexual interest in the young man in the words “stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand”..."

So there we go, folks, since Jesus took hold of the young man's hand, that means the whole story is the story of a homosexual pick-up! How's that for logic and common sense?

Is this what passes for scholarly literature nowadays? Surely, a distinguished contribution from Yale University Press!

Yet another relevant example is the big deal Jeffery makes of the fact that the deceased youth was placed in a tomb, and then came out of it.

Well, obviously, this is yet another indication of a homosexual pick-up! Clearly, the 'tomb' was meant to be a 'closet', so the young man's coming out of the tomb must have been his 'coming out of the closet'!

Are we losing our minds yet?

As Brown rightly remarks,

"There is a method to this madness -- a hermeneutics of desperation."

And all this just goes on and on...

According to Brown,

"Jeffery deduces from a sentence in Secret Gospel that when Smith participated in the midnight worship services at Mar Saba in 1941 he indulged in homosexual rape fantasies (128–30, 301 n. 34) and even told a rape joke “in church—in one of the most renowned Christian monasteries!” (129). "

How do you like this one, friends? I wonder if Prof. Jeffery was on drugs when he wrote all this... But isn't there some adult supervision somewhere at Yale University, and its distinguished University Press?

And now, let's look at how Morton Smith also *hated women* and, accordingly, produced his highly misogynist 'forgery'... As per Brown, Jeffery reads the two Longer Mark excerpts,

"...as an extended double entendre depicting Jesus spurning the advances of a nymphomaniac and another temptress, in order to rescue a young man who cries out in anguish from the closet. This concealed comical meaning is Jeffery’s basis for alleging that longer Mark depicts Jesus as a homosexual."

And again,

"The continuation of this story in [the second excerpt from the Longer Mark] reinforces Jesus’ sexual orientation by establishing his disdain for women: “after Jesus’ homoerotic nocturnal encounter with a naked [sic], young, rich man, he refuses to meet some women who want to see him” (96). ... Jesus “refuses to meet with Salome, a woman who wants him. Indeed, he refuses to meet with three women of different generations, as if rejecting womankind in general” (98)."

So there we go. Just in order to reiterate his hatred for _all_ women, Morton Smith even made sure to include "three women of different generations" into his 'forgery'! Isn't it clever of him?

And how about this as a characterisation of the many years of hard work that Smith put into his book CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA? Jeffery describes the book as,

“hundreds of slovenly pages filled with ignorance, foolishness, and angry jokes about the meaning of early Christian baptism [sic]” (251).

Just amazing...

But, then again, according to Brown,

"Startling disparagements and dubious allegations of deceit occur throughout the book... "

At the beginning of his opus, Jeffery reassures us as follows,

“And I pray for the late Morton Smith—may God rest his anguished soul” (ix).

Well, that's good to know that Prof. Jeffery really cares about Morton Smith, and will keep praying for him... But it seems to me that Prof. Jeffery _also_ needs help from above, and perhaps even more than Morton Smith. Yes, from above, and maybe even from below, such as some urgent psychological counselling.

Best regards,

Yuri.

the_cave

On the contrary, if it is self-contradictory (I am not sure that is the best way of putting it, or else I don't see what you mean) that's evidence IMO of more than one hand at work.

And (you're probably not going to be impressed by this, but oh well) Turton's commentary notes that the chiastic structure of this pericope is only partially successful. This likewise suggests that more than one hand has been at work in this pericope. And, indeed, this is just where we might expect to find it, eh? In the other place where the "secret of the Kingdom of God" is mentioned. So I would argue that this pericope definitely shows signs of having been reworked by a redactor. Let's call "Mark" (with Turton) the chiasm-author. Then the other author is the later redactor--who seems to have links with the Secret Mark passages, suggesting that Koester has been on to something after all. (Indeed, Turton himself notes that something seems to be missing in Jericho in canonical Mark, so I find his hostility to Secret Mark somewhat puzzling. Also note the parallels between Secret Mark and the story of Zacchaeas in Luke--representing Yochanan ben Zakai I would guess, in a kind of "Jesus meets Yochanan" tale--how Zaccheas is likewise a rich man whose house Jesus visits in Jericho.)

That's a kind of fanciful story, though I see nothing objectionable in it. I would simply argue that there are textual relationships among the stories of Jesus raising the dead. I have no idea what that means for history.

Solo

I am not amiliar with Michael's argument and what pericope is being contemplated. From what I can see, the chiastic structure of the "sower" is tight:

Sower's seed:
a) devoured by the birds
b) on rocky ground
c) among thorns
d) on fertile ground

e) Jesus alone -> those with him ask, why parables ?
f) you "know" the mysteries of the kingdom - (i.e. the mystery of approaching me when I am alone) but they don't, to them all is in parables
e) they see but not perceive, may hear but do not understand
f) lest they repent and be forgiven (as you are)

Sower's word:
a) Satan immediately takes the word away
b) word has no roots, when tribulation or persecution arises, the hearers turn away
c) those hearers among thorns have cares of the world, and desire worldly things, and choke the word
d) those who accept the word bear fruit and multiply it....

Hard for me to see more than one plan for this structure.

Cheers,
Jiri

the_cave

You have definitely pointed out the real parallelisms present in the parable. But this is not a chiasm. A chiasm mirrors itself--that is, its second half is a reversal of the first. You climb into a chiasm, then you climb back out. Here the author has simply told a parable, then reiterated it from an allegorical standpoint. So either Turton's chiasm-author wrote in structures other than chiasms (which is possible) or this is the hand of a different author.

andrewcriddle

Actually Peter Jeffery interprets Morton Smith's claim (when describing his first visit to Mar Saba in the 1940's) about the supposedly hypnotic consciousness altering effect of the liturgy at Mar Saba "... I knew what was happening but I relaxed and enjoyed it..." as a bad taste joke/double entendre comparing the supposed loss of control of those participating in the liturgy to rape. (Old misogynist joke. If rape is inevitable relax and enjoy it.) Peter Jeffery in discussion of his claim and its implications, adds that it is possible that Morton Smith did genuinely experience his disorientation as some form of sexual assault but concludes "I think it highly doubtful that the historical Morton Smith ......actually experienced what the authorial Smith of 1973 described."

I can see why Scott Brown interprets Peter Jeffery the way he does but IMO this is a claim (right or wrong) about Morton Smith telling an unpleasant joke in the 1970's rather than about what actually happened in the 1940's.

Although regrettable at any time, it may be worth noting that jokes and double entendres about rape would have been less unacceptable 30-40 years ago than they would be today.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

You are probably right...it's not a mirroring parallel in details, so it might not qualify as chiasm. Bottom line, though, it's a 'tight' structure and it would be difficult to write something different into the "sower sandwich" that would be as fitting as what's been handed down to us in 4:10-12.

Jiri

the_cave

FWIW I agree that Brown has mischaracterized Jeffery here, but I also find Jeffery's claim bizarre. Another example of reading something into a text that just isn't there (IMO, I guess I should add).