Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-31-2011, 04:14 PM

I happened to have remembered two comments made in passing by Andrew in another thread while reading Athanasius's Arian History. The first was made on March 16, 2011 where Andrew said that 'agape' would never have been linked with homoerotic love by an ancient Christian:

Quote:

uses agape words in all three cases. This argues against any idea of sublimated eroticism here

The second was that I had mischaracterized Stephen Carlson's position regarding the homoerotic overtones in the Letter to Theodore. I had implied incorrectly I think, that Carlson was saying that the 'love' mentioned in the Mar Saba document between disciple and Jesus was homoerotic. Criddle not only reiterated that agape could never be taken as homosexual love but that the two references to agape in Secret Mark (LGM 1) would never be mistaken as homosexual love:

Quote:

Stephen Carlson's argument at least is that the passage from Secret Mark as allegedly quoted by Clement (as distinct from the supposed Carpocratian version) would not in itself be seen by an ancient reader as potentially homoerotic. 'Clement's' concerns about the passage and its use by the Carpocratians does however indicate that 'Clement' regards the passage as at least potentially homoerotic. This is how a modern reader with modern preconceptions tends to read Secret Mark but not how an ancient reader would understand it.

Interestingly enough, I happened to notice that in Athanasius's propaganda against George the Arian bishop of Alexandria that the parallel reference to Jesus's love for the rich youth is developed exactly into this type of insulting reference:

Quote:

Again he transferred from Cappadocia to Milan one Auxentius an intruder rather than a Christian, whom he commanded to stay there, after he had banished for his piety towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the place, a godly man. But this person was as yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and unskilful in everything except impiety. And now one George, a Cappadocian, who was contractor of stores at Constantinople, and having embezzled all monies that he received, was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter Alexandria with military pomp, and supported by the authority of the General. Next, finding one Epictetus a novice, a bold young man, he loved him perceiving that he was ready for wickedness; and by his means he carries on his designs against those of the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. (History of the Arians Part 8)

The Greek for the 'he loved him' reference is ᾽Επικτητόν τινα…νεώτερον…ἠγάπησεν, ὁρῶν, κ. τ. λ. So in the account of the νεανίσκος, ῾Ο δὲ ᾽Ιησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ, ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν. Mark x. 21. Epictetus is elsewhere called a ὑποκρίτης, which Montfaucon translated ‘stage-player.’ It is a question whether more than ‘actor’ is meant by it, alluding to the mockery of an ordination in which he seems to have taken part. The point of course is that not only is LGM 1 'right beside' this reference - the same word for love is used ἠγάπησεν making it absolutely certain that such a reference was indeed possible to misconstrue into a homosexual relationship.

I have an ever more explosive post to follow. But I thought that was important to mention.

stephan huller · 03-31-2011, 05:54 PM

I have been looking high and low for the article I had read on line arguing that the sense here was homosexual. Looking it over a second time - and playing devil's advocate - if the 'actor' reference isn't stronger enough to make the passage homosexual then it must be acknowledged that we are getting some insight into the original cult of St. Mark at his martyrium (which was the Arian stronghold in Alexandria, Arius himself having been presbyter of the church before being deposed by Alexander).

George as Pope is the representative of Christ and Epictetus the disciple loved by Jesus who must clearly be St. Mark given the provenance of the tradition. It would certainly argue for a connection between Arianism and the native cult of St. Mark in Alexandria. It would be hard to argue against the idea that this pair had great significance in the native Alexandrian See and that something like Secret Mark - which augmented the importance of the rich youth - was firmly entrenched there.

A very interesting reference at least

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2011, 05:54 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have been looking high and low for the article I had read on line arguing that the sense here was homosexual. Looking it over a second time - and playing devil's advocate - if the 'actor' reference isn't stronger enough to make the passage homosexual then it must be acknowledged that we are getting some insight into the original cult of St. Mark at his martyrium (which was the Arian stronghold in Alexandria, Arius himself having been presbyter of the church before being deposed by Alexander). George as Pope is the representative of Christ and Epictetus the disciple loved by Jesus who must clearly be St. Mark given the provenance of the tradition. It would certainly argue for a connection between Arianism and the native cult of St. Mark in Alexandria. It would be hard to argue against the idea that this pair had great significance in the native Alexandrian See and that something like Secret Mark - which augmented the importance of the rich youth - was firmly entrenched there. A very interesting reference at least

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.