reply to post by Clearskies
Yes there are thousands of manuscripts everywhere, but surely the most important one is the one that was written by the finger of god ? Now what was
that called ?
Was Jesus gay? Some scholars, especially the late Dr. Morton Smith, believe so. Here's why:
In 1941, a 26 yo graduate student named Morton Smith traveled to Jerusalem on a traveling fellowship from Harvard. While there, Smith visited the Mar
Saba monastery. He stumbled upon the monastery's library and realized that there were several priceless antiquity books there that desperately needed
to be cataloged. Smith returned to the States after WWII and received two PhD's - one in ancient Christianity and another in ancient Palestine. He
became a professor at Columbia University. In 1958, Dr Smith decided to return to the Mar Saba monastery to complete the work of cataloging the
library. While going through the books, he noticed something peculiar in the back of an early edition of the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. What he
found was a remarkable discovery that could perhaps change our viewpoint on Christianity and the historical persona of Jesus.
What Smith had discovered was a copied ancient letter by Clement of Alexandria. Clement is a very important figure in early Christian history, and
most of his writings have been preserved today. However, we did not have any letters from Clement until Smith made this startling discovery. In the
letter, Clement is writing to an unknown individual named Theodore, in response to some of his queries about a particularly notorious sect of early
Christians known as the Carpocratians. They basically believed that since God was sovereign over all, no one owned anything, property, or person,
including their spouse. So, they practiced 'wife swapping' and other sexual acts as part of their worship.
Anyways, in the letter Clement praises Theodore, who apparently is some sort of church leader, for silencing the false teachings of the Carpocratian
sect within his region. Clement continues by explaining how the Carpocratians had grossly misinterpreted passages from the Gospel of Mark, from whence
the sect had claimed their sacred authority in committing their odd liturgy. Then he proceeds to clarify Marks Gospel and how it was falsified by the
In the letter, Clement basically talks about how there were three accounts to the Gospel of Mark. There is one in which Mark first wrote - the one
presumably in our canonical bible today. Then, Mark wrote another gospel for the 'spiritually advanced' Christians in which he added more stories to
help the Christian elite progress in their knowledge of the truth. Then there was the Gospel of Mark that the Carpocratians had taken, supposedly from
the second Gospel Mark wrote, in which the sect modified it to make their religion fit.
Ok, after all that said, here is the most significant part. In this letter, Clement quotes two passages from the second, secret Gospel of Mark. In
these passages, we are given a glimpse of ancient accounts of Jesus that are not known from any other source, until this letter appeared. The first
passage, Clement indicates, occurs immediately after what is now Mark 10:34, and reads as follows:
They came to Bethany, and a woman was there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus, saying to him, "Son of David, have
mercy on me." But his disciples rebuked her. Jesus became angry and went off with her to the garden where the tomb was.
Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb. Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. Immediately he went in
where the young man was, stretched out his hand, and raised him by seizing his hand.
The young man looked at him intently and loved him; and he began pleading with him that he might be with him. When they came out of the tomb they went
to the young man's house, for he was wealthy.
And after six days Jesus gave him a command. And when it was evening the young man came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. He stayed
with him that night, for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. When he got up from there, he returned to the other side of the
This story has, of course, has caused a great stir among scholars. Although the story has similarities with other stories such as the raising of
Lazarus, and the rich young man in Mark 10, there are startling differences. To some interpreters, especially near the end, the story has a homoerotic
overtone to it. Jesus becomes acquainted with a young man who loves him and comes to him with nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body. Then they
spend the night together where Jesus teaches him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. What's that all about?
The second passage Clement quotes is anti-climatic in comparison. Clement indicates that after Mark 10:46, there was another addition in the secret
Mark Gospel that is not in our canonical bible. It simply states:
And the sister of the young man Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not receive them.
This passage isn't important by itself, but when one looks at our canonical Gospel of Mark 10:46 it seems rather odd until this 'secret' passage
Clement quotes is inserted. In our version, why does Mark state that 'they' came to Jericho if they didn't do anything there? And why did Mark say
"he went out of Jericho with his disciples"? Why not just say 'they' again, as he did in the first part of the verse? Alas, if you insert
Clement's passage from apparently the longer, secret version of Mark's Gospel, this is what you end up with:
46 And they came to Jericho. And the sister of the young man Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not receive them.
And as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people...
Doesn't that make a lot more sense?