Friday, 6 August 2010

Was Jesus Gay? Mark, and the "Naked Young Man".

Discussion of the question "Was Jesus gay?" usually revolves around the references in the Gospel of John, to "The disciple Jesus loved." These are well known, and have been widely discussed, here at QTC and elsewhere.  My reservations about these references are that they all come from the author of John's Gospel, talking about himself as writer. I would be more easily convinced by the argument if there were corroborating evidence from the other Gospels:  if Matthew, or Luke, or Mark, also made the same references to one specific disciple who was "loved" in a way the others were not, andsimlarly noted how he rested his head on Jesus' breast, or in his lap, and appeared to have inside information on Jesus thoughts and intentions - as John does.

Theodore Jennings, in "The Man Jesus Loved", might just have some such corroborating evidence, from the Gospel of Mark, and from infuriatingly fragmentary evidence from what just might be a lost,  more extended version of that Gospel: something known as the "Secret Gospel" of Mark. In the first part of the book, Jennings offer an extensive examination of the evidence from John's Gospel, and concludes that yes, the evidence is clear: there was indeed an unusually intimate relationship between Jesus and the author of that Gospel (whom he does not believe was in fact John). But then he continues, to look for further evidence from the other Gospels.
In Mark, he first draws our attention to a well-known passage which is seldom remarked on for homoerotic associations - the story of the "rich young man", drawing attention to the words of the text,:
Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said....
Alone, this these words are not particularly remarkable, except that elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus is not said to "love" specific individuals outside of the "beloved disciple" of John's Gospel. It becomes more interesting though, when read together with some other lines from Mark .  Jennings first discusses the curious matter of the "neaniskos", or "naked young man", in Jesus company in the Garden of Gethsemane:
And they all forsook him and fled.
And a youth ("neaniskos") accompanied him, clothed in a linen cloth ("sindona") over his nudity ("gumnos").  And they seized him.  And he, leaving his linen cloth, fled nude ("gymnos").
(Mark 14: 50 -52)
Who is this youth? What is he doing there? Why has he stayed behind, "accompanying" Jesus, after all the others have fled (at least until he is seized, and then flees, naked). Why is he so lightly clothed, that his garment can fall away so easily (the "sindoma" was not properly an item of clothing at all, but just a loose linen sheet)? And why use a word, "gymnos"  for nudity, which is strongly  associated with the homoeroticism of the Greek gymnasium - where young men exercised naked, and older men came to admire them?

But the most intriguing passage of all is found not in the standard Gospel of Mark, but in the so-called "Secret Mark", supposedly found by Morton Smith in an eighteenth century copy of a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria, found in 1958.  The authenticity is disputed,  but some scholars accept that it authentic, and is taken from an earlier, longer version of Mark's Gospel than the one we use today.  I'm not going to get into the details of the origin or significance of this fragment  - see Jennings for that - but here is the bit that intrigues:
And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there.  and, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy upon me."..But the disciples rebuked her.  And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightaway a great cry was heard from the tomb.  And going near Jesus rolled away a stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand nad raised him, seizing his hand.  But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him.  And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, and he was rich.  And and after six days Jesus told him what he wast to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body.  And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And then, arising, he returned to the other side of Jordan.
This passage has two literary connection to the two earlier passages from canonical Mark: the verb used here for he youth "looking at "Jesus is the same ("emblepein") as that  that used to describe Jesus when he "looked at" (and "loved") the rich young man;  and here again, he is described as wearing just a linen cloth over his naked body.  (This is not on being raised from the dead, when such a cloth would have been expected, abut when he came to Jesus six days later.

Now, be honest:  if a young man came to you, "in the evening", wearing "nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body", what do you suppose he was after?  And if he came not to you, but to another man, and then stayed the night, what do you suppose your conclusion would be in the morning?

The fragment known as Secret Mark may not be authentic - but then, it may.  If so, the implications and connections to the other two passages, and to John are at least intriguing.  Is this the same rich young man who turned down the invitation to sell all and follow the Lord?  is he the same young man in a linen cloth who stayed with him after all others had fled? Is he, indeed, the "beloved disciple?"


  1. A majority of reliable scholars agree that The Secret Gospel of Mark wasn't a forgery, particularly since Clement of Alexander told Theodocrities that lying for God was acceaptable, and he therefore had no incentive to prevaricate about what he wrote.

    However, a 'great cry came from the garden tomb' with a stone over its door that was loose-fitting enough to let air in, meaning that Lazrus/John was undergoing only a mystical, Gnostic-like ritual representing life, death and resurrection. Orthdox Christianity will always reject the Secret Mark because Yeshua likely didn't rise from physical death if he didn't resurrect John.

    And it was no surprise that Yeshua b'ecame angered' when Myriam came out of the house, because she was symbolically mourning John, her brother, since Jehudite tradition didn't allow wives to leave the house without their husbands' permission when wives were sitting in mourning for relatives - while the family situation wasn't usual because men in the ancient world commonly had wives and male lovers, with Alexander's father having so many of the latter that some of his counselors found him 'disgusting'. Nonetheless, people at the time didn't differentiate between heterosexuality and same-gender love.

    And I theorize that Yeshua was the 'bisexual' leader of a goddess-worshipping community, with Mary Magdalene as its sacred harlot High Priestess, since bi-love represented gender-equality, a perfect union between husband and wife, and therefore a perfect union with the God/Goddess. After all, goddess-worship was alive even at Yehua's time, and Jehovah's female consort/wife was revered as the Holy Spirit, the Shakina, a feminine word in Hebrew.

    As it is, questioning The Secret Mark is the equivalent of reputable scholars agreeing that references to Jesus in Josephus and Origen, possibly Tacitus, are bogus. That's paricularly of note considering that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea, despite which there's no mention of him in their well-kept records of the time.

    And I can't see any more of a problem with The Secret Mark than the synoptic, Gnostic or Apocryphal Gospels.


    1. Many thanks for this useful contribution. I'm interested to learn that "A majority of reliable scholars agree that The Secret Gospel of Mark wasn't a forgery". Quite recently, I read elsewhere a statement making precisely the opposite claim.

      However, your explanation of the background and meaning of the passage make sense, to me.