Monday, August 29, 2011

The Many Loves (and Betrayal) of Jesus

Dan Brown, in his best seller, The Da Vinci Code, established the idea that Jesus the Christ was in love with and maybe wedded Mary Magdalene, from which much new religious myth has evolved.

But the “fact” is that Jesus was homosexual or bi-sexual, if you will.

That the Godhead [God] was homosexually inclined was hypothesized in The BiblicalParadigm for Homosexuality [1979, The Wilde Society].

One excerpt from the Paradigm book, among many culled from the Hebrew Bible, to support the homosexual thesis:

“When Israel was a boy, then I loved him.” [Hosea 11]

The insistence by God (Yahweh) in the Old Testament for pristine genitalia, via circumcision, is rampant, and underscores the mythology of the Phallic God, which derives from the Biblical passages or, more likely, antedates them.

That Jesus was inclined to homosexuality was suggested by Morton Smith in his book The Secret Gospel (of Mark) [The Dawn Horse Press, Clearlake, California, 1982].

Smith allegedly found an unexpurgated Gospel of Mark, in which Jesus imparted secret sexual rites to a youth, as indicated in the unexpurgated Gospel, beginning at the account of the Raising of Lazarus:

“And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he [Jesus] stretched forth his hand and 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 he tomb they came into the house of the youth, for his was rich.

And after six days Jesus told him what 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” [Page 16 ff.]

And a portion of the original (secret) Gospel shows up in the canonical Gospel of Mark:

“And they all abandoned him and fled. But a certain young man wearing a fine linen garment over his naked body began to follow him nearby; and they tried to seize him But he left his linen garment and got away naked.” [Mark 14:50 ff.]

The writer of The Gospel of John (whom this writer believes was actually John the disciple, as recounted in the canonical gospels) referred to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Greek: ο μαθητης ον ηγαπα ο Ιησους, o mathētēs on ēgapa o Iēsous). [John 20:2]

And in the Gospel of Judas [circa 180 A.D.], that manuscript relates, Jesus favours Judas above other disciples by saying, "Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom," [Wikipedia].

The mysteries of the kingdom?

Circumstantially, it seems that Jesus the Christ has a significant sexual subtext that the Canon overlooks or eliminated by expurgation and selection of writings.

Jesus’ protracted and ubiquitous calls for “love” can be seen as sexual in nature and not spiritual as the Church has developed in its theology.

That Judas may have betrayed Jesus out of a feeling of jealous pique is not to be discounted either.

The overwhelming patina of Jesus ministry is one of the constant love refrain, as applied to Peter and the disciples generally:

“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” [John 21:15]

“Simon, son of John, do you have affection for me?” [John 21:17]

Or, as in Luke 6:32, “And if you love those loving you, of what credit is it to you?”

And this from John 15:17, “These things I command you, that you love one another.”

Jesus, like his Father [Yahweh], was a sexual creature, and the sublimated sexuality is obvious, in the canonical texts and overt in the Gnostic texts, which we shall deal with, ongoing, here.


  1. Um... I dunno. Forcing generous interpretations of the word love (vis a vis our 21st Century context) or relying on pseudepigrapha and apocrypha isn't going to get you very far. And I don't dismiss the premise because I find it abhorrent, but it is thin and the supporting documentation specious at best. But that said, I will offer (since this may be of interest)that Gaudi's depiction of the Judas kiss on the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona is among the least fraternal I've ever seen. Again, that is in no way proof of something that occurred more than 2 millienia ago, but you might still find it fascinating.

  2. Cullan:

    I find the Smith thesis, in context with the Biblical Paradigm booklet, and arcane theological material, plus the Gnostic oeuvre, supportive of the posting above.

    If one finds the suggestion abhorrent, I can only remind them of Seinfeld's dictum about homosexuality: Not that there's anything wrong with it.


  3. One could take the gnostic report by Thomas to deal with bisexuality in when to paraphrase, you make the male female and the female, male, you enter the Kingdom. It could just as easily be read is when you unify internally, the poles of a binary dynamic, you find the Holy Ghost of reconciliation. Frankly I find this take akin to just a variant of fundamentalism dressed up in provocation, that leads to the lowest common denominator of discernment in regard to animal instinct and reproduction, desire, etc, which, in of itself, is the spirit made flesh which is without a sexual orientation, hence I think you mistake the peripheral for the source. Have you read any Islamic texts regarding Jesus?

  4. Bruce:

    There will be more about this, here, upcoming.

    I'm a bit surprised however by your and Cullan's reactive -- nay, defensive -- comments.

    The conjecture is not unique as you can guess, and is grist at Gnostic forums, even among scholars who don't find the idea that Jesus may have been homosexual abhorrent or impossible.

    Moreover, I doubt you fellows have read The Biblical Paradigm....and maybe not even Morton Smith's intriguing, little book, The Secret Gospel.

    That said, the writer is familiar with the Islamic view of Jesus.


  5. Another possibility is that to be naked is to be exposed. The old Thomas quotation of Jesus in why do you worry about the appearance of your cup rather than what is in it? I don't feel defensive, as I think as opposed to perhaps a majority, that in spiritual matters, one's sexual politics or orientation as a factor in terms of spirituality belongs more in the 15th century than the 21st. Perhaps the secular has outpaced the theological as far as this being a burning issue or perhaps to the fundamentalists. . ..of various stripes. In this sense, it seems a bit silly and retro as an issue. If he did, what is your point beyond this demarcation? I was frankly hoping for a more of a hook. Cest la Vie.

  6. Bruce:

    We Freudians remain immersed in the concept that sexuality is the prime mover of civilization, despite its discontents.

    That Jesus was homosexual, as was the Godhead, helps explain, for some of us, the bizarre exigencies of everyday life.

    If the post is retro, then everything is retro.

    I wouldn't think that you, of all people, would denigrate retro ruminations...


  7. It could be due to my ignorance of your organization of thought in terms of the concept of tying together Freud, Gnostics, God and Homosexuality. On the surface, without your further elucidation I based my comments sincerely on your pivot point in terms of missing how all this is relevant to in contemporary terms within a retro-causal context, which absolutely escapes me. I get the sociopolitical criticism, but as far as metaphysics is concerned, you lost me on this one. I see Jesuits wringing their hands.

  8. My comments were neither reactive nor defensive. As the saying goes, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't honestly care one way or the other. I just don't think analysis is tantamount to proof. With the vague language (thousands of years removed) of the Bible, it's easy to find in it whatever we want--as many zealots do all the time in justifying their various positions. Doesn't make them right either. The simple fact is that there is no clear documentation to irrefutably support your assertion. That's why I say the premise is weak. And I'd like to think that's an informed opinion, given that I grew up hearing ancient Greek spoken as much in my house as English and saw more at 14 of the pseudepigrapha than MTV (suffice it to say, I had an unusual childhood).

  9. Bruce:

    My Jesuitical teachers, while in seminary, loved this kind of conjecture. (They were straight too.)

    As for metaphysics. with God dead (as I am pushing lately), I think we can go forward into the physical, without the meta...


  10. Cullan:

    I don't think the posting was meant to be a proof of anything, just a quasi-bizarre conjecture.

    The subliminal references to sexuality in the Bible (Hebrew, Old and New Testaments) along with the myths and stories of ancient Greece (Homer, in particular) allow, it seems to me, the conjecture that Jesus and others we revere were not immune to sexual proclivities, straight or otherwise.

    I was disturbed that Wolfgang Petersens' "Troy" ameliorated Achilles' homosexuality, much as the Canonical books of the New Testament ameliorated Jesus' proclivities, as Morton Smith discovered.

    You have read his book, right? I know you haven't read The Biblical Paradigm...


  11. Well, that presumes Smith's work wasn't based upon the forgery many people believe it to be. If we're talking about Mar Saba, then there exists much debate as to its authenticity (and more than one implication that he himself forged it). Even if it were not a forgery, we still have to contend with the fact that the letter was written by, Clement, a man who wasn't even born until 150 years had passed since Jesus' death, which certainly makes him an early scholar of the Christian church but hardly an eyewitness. And Clement, in his letter, only hints at such a gospel. As far as I know this gospel (aka 'Secret Mark') has never been found and I find it highly convenient that Smith was able able to find and photograph this letter without really any other witnesses and then the document mysteriously disappears. It's all too coincidental and smacks of the same type of conspiracy and fraud seen in other avenues of anomalous investigation, to which I'm sure you know what I refer. If we give full weight to Smith's work, we should also look at exposes such as that by James Hunter.

    And I wouldn't want to come across as defensive, so again I will state that I don't have a vested interest in the premise of all this. This is the same level of skepticism I'd bring to a UFO report, Sasquatch sighting, or Diffusionist manifesto.

  12. Cullan:

    Of course one should look at the Smith thesis with skepticism and severe scrutiny.

    But leaving Smith out of the equation, one wonders what that passage in Canonical Mark means; that is, the youth fleeing naked from the Garden when Jesus was arrested.

    And one must consider the overt homosexual inferences in the Old Testament -- by Yahweh, mostly.

    There is the David/Johnathan "covenant" In Book 1 of Samuel also to consider.

    And the Lot episode in Genesis 19.

    But sticking with Jesus, John's attribution to himself as The Beloved Disciple, with the Aramaic and Greek meaning(s) of the word "beloved" should be considered too.

    Also a reading of John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" [The University of Chicago Press, 1980] should be enlightening to those ill-read in the theology of homosexuality in the early Church.

    While the suggestion that Morton Smith created his thesis, engaging in fraud and forgery, is rife among those offended by homosexuality or the idea that Jesus may have been so inclined, I find Smith's material to be intriguing, and authentic, circumstantially.

    I suggest that you, Cullan, and Bruce read Boswell, The Biblical Paradigm...(if you can get your hands on it), and Smith's book, itself, rather than commentaries about it from religious die-hards and homophobes.


  13. Oh, and here's a picture I took of the Judas Kiss statue at the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, if you're interested. I found the lover-like embrace intriguing. And while I give it a DaVinci Code-esque spin, it could easily swing Smith's way as well.

  14. Is Judas really betraying Christ?

    Or is he saying a passionate goodbye to his "friend"?